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.

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. ● . 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 somebody in the world ) the number of bookes is grown so great , that they begin with many to grow contemptible ; and a man may bestow a great many yeares to find out the Authors weaknesse , and that his books have nothing in them but common ; and so many must be tossed over before we find out those few that are cleare and solid , that much of our lives are spent in the discovery : And yet he is thought to scape well that onely loseth his time and labour and gets no more hurt by them . Some think the truth will not thrive among us , till every man have leave to speak both in Presse and Pulpit that please : God forbid that we should ever see that day ! If ten mens voyces be louder then one , then would the noyse of Errour drown the voyce of Truth : Ignorance is usually clamorous and loud , but Truth is modest , though zealous : One Orthodox faithfull Teacher , would scarce be seen or finde room for the crowd of seducers : For the godly , compared with the ungodly , are not neer so few as the men of cleer understanding , in comparison of the ignorant : And they are most forward to speake , that know least .

2. Others there are of much like understanding and ends as the former , who yet take the contrary meanes to obtaine those ends . They know no such way to be the onely men , as magisterially to silence all contradictors : If it were onely for apparent and weighty truths , I should commend their zeale : But the mischiefe is , that they will bee Creed-makers themselves , or put their Commentaries into the Text , or so conjoyne them , as the Rhemists , that the Text may not walk in the day-light alone : And so the Creed of many , who have a quicke and easie faith is swelled as big almost as Aquinas Summes . If one of the Primitive Martyrs were alive among us , and professed but what was in his ancient Creed , hee would scarce be taken by many for a Christian. I am not all so narrow in my Creed , as Doctor Taylor urgeth : but I have observed more of this sort of men contemne his arguments , then are able to answer them . These men themselves beleeve so much ( fide humana ) that they know but little ; and yet they would have no body know more then they , or no body speake that saith not as they . They would have nothing said but what is said already ; and then it is better ( in print ) say nothing . They think it a reproach to change our opinions , or hold them with reserves : Pudet haec opprobria nobis , &c. But O that these men could tell us how to remedy it ! To cry down that ignorance which dwelleth in me , is more to the credit of Knowledge then of me . But these men are like many superficiall Schollars , who when they have spent many yeares in the Vniversities , have no way to prove themselves proficients , but to extoll Learning , and cry down the unlearned , that so they may cast the suspition from themselves upon others : Even so doe these in crying down errours . I know this small Tract will not rellish well with these mens pallats , neither is it ambitious of their favour , or yet so quarrelsome as purposely to provoke them ; though some words may not be cut meet to their conceits . As I abhorre the project of Iulian to destroy the Christian Faith , by giving all Sects a liberty of contending ; so am I loath that any such monster should be produced by nature who should be a professed enemy to the advancement of Reason ; or should presume to bound that sea of Knowledge which God hath promised shall cover the earth ; and to say , hitherto shalt thou go , and no further : For my part , I must say as Burgersdicius in praefat. ad secundam edit . Logic. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vis enim humanae mentis ita circumscripta est , ut omnia non videat omni tempore ; & quae ante a probavit , post accuratius examen iterum improbet , rejiciatque . Hoc adeo reipsa comperio saepius in studiis meditationibusque meis , ut quae olim mihi visa sunt certissima & quasi ex tripode pronunciata , ea melioribus rationibus motus deprehendam , admodum esse a veritate aliena . And sure Divinity hath as great depths as Philosophy ; especially where it is interwoven with it ▪ And to them that will certifie me in my mistakes , I must say as Aristotle to his Physitian when he prescribed him the meanes of his cure ( referente Aeliano , lib. 9. de var. Hist. ) Ne , inquit , me cures velut bubulcum , velut fossorem , fed prius causam edissere , sic enim facili persuasione me morigerum reddideris . Crudelissima enim est ( inquit Ritschel ) & infanissima tyrannis , cum quis alios , ut à se dictis assurgant , cogere vult , nulla dictorum evidentia allata .

3. But the greatest enemy to knowledge of all , is mens studying onely names and words , in stead of things . Both in Sciences and Divinity this hath debased mens understandings . Men get all the termes of Art , and Theologicall definitions , Distinctions , Axiomes , &c. at their fingers end ; but to study the nature of the things themselves , they are utterly carelesse . Their learning lyeth more in their memory , than in their reason and judgement : There you may finde perhaps a large Nomenclature , or a Farrago Notionum secundarum , sed ferè sine primis . They have learned ( as Parrots ) to speak the same words which their Tutors and Authors have put into their mouthes ; but put them out of their beaten road , and they are at a stand : These men may with industry make good Linguists or Historians ▪ or perhaps be able to muster an Army without their Roles : But for Philosophy and Divinity , they have little more then the Carriers horse when he hath a Library on his back . As learned Thomas White saith , in Dialog de mundo , pag. 370 ▪ Doctorum duae sunt Classes , Alii enim cruditi sunt quasi memoria tenus docti ; alii veritatum pensitatores . Duo itaque ad authoritatem petuntur , ut & artis peritus sit , & ex eorum numero penes quos depositum est scientiae Tribunal . What I would say to these men , they may read ( if they will bestow the labour ) in Ritschell's Preface to his late Contemplationes Metaphysicae .

And ( which is the killing effect of this venome ) these Preachers usually teach their people a Christianity suitable to their owne Theologie , which consisteth in repeating certaine words , and formes , and using certain ceremonious actions , and then they are as good Christians as they themselves are Divines .

4. And yet were there no miscarriage in our studies , Knowledge could not make that happy progresse which some expect : For it is not in studies as it is in Manufactures , that one man may begin where another left ; but every man must fetch it from the very principles himselfe : Neither can we take the words of those that have studied it before us ; for that is neither a sound , nor satisfactory knowledge : whence it comes to passe , ( saith Pemble Vind. Grat. p. 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 ●ou can spare for controversie , let it chiefely be spent upon these that are so weighty . Be ashamed that men sh●uld heare you disputing about Circumstanti●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 brev●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 in expediting the Arminian Controversies , as you shall perceive after : Some parts of Scripture do in severall respects belong to both these Wills ; such are some promises and threatnings conditionall , which as they are predictions of what shall come to passe , do belong to the will Purpose , but as they are purposely delivered and annexed to the commands and prohibitions for incitement to Duty , and restraint from Sin , ( which was indeed the great end of God in them ) so they belong to the Will of Precept : For the promise of Reward , and the threatning of Punishment , are reall parts of the Law or Covenant , so of History . All this is only a preparative to the opening more fully the nature of the Legislative Will , and what falls under it : For the Will of Purpose , and what is under it , I have no intention any further to handle .

THESIS III.

First , The Will of God concerning duty is expressed wholly in his written Laws . Secondly Which Laws are promulgate and established by way of Covenant , wherein the Lord engageth himselfe to reward those that performe its conditions , and threateneth the penalty to the violaters thereof .

EXPLICATION .

1. NOt but that much of Gods Will is also contained in the Law of Nature ; or may by the meere use of Reason be learned from Creatures , and Providences : But yet this is nothing against the Scriptures sufficiency and perfection : For besides all the superadded Positives , the Scripture also containes all that which we call the Law of Nature ; and it is there to be found more legible and discernable than in the best of our obscure , deceitfull , corrupted hearts .

2. All perfect compulsive Laws have their penalty annexed , ( or else they are but meerly directive ) but not usually any reward propounded to the obeyers : It is sufficient that the Subject know his Soveraignes pleasure , which he is bound to observe without any reward . Meere Laws are enacted by Soveraignty : Meere Covenants are entred by equalls , or persons dis-engaged to each other in respect of the contents of the Covenants , and therefore they require mutuall consent . These therefore made by God , are of a mixt nature ; neither meere Laws , nor meere Covenants , but both . He hath enacted his Laws as our Soveraigne Lord , whithout waiting for the Creatures consent , and will punish the breakers , whether they consent or no : But as it is a Covenant , there must be a restipulation from the Creature ; and God will not performe his conditions there expressed , without the Covenanters consent , engagement , and performance of theirs .

Yet is it called frequently in Scripture ( a Covenant , ) as it is offered by God , before it be accepted and entered into by the Creature : because the condescention is only on Gods part ; and in reason there should be no question of the Creatures consent , it being so wholly and only to his advantage . Gen. 9. 12 17. Exod. 34. 28. Deut. 29. 1. 2 Kings 23. 3 &c.

There are some generall obscure Threatnings annexed to the prohibitions in the Law of Nature ; that is , Nature may discerne that God will punish the breakers of his Law , but how , or with what degree of punishment it cannot discern : Also it may collect that God will be favourable and gratious to the Obedient : but it neither knows truly the conditions , nor the nature or greatnesse of the Reward , nor Gods engagement thereto . Therefore as it is in Nature , it is a meer Law ; and not properly a Covenant . Yea to Adam in his perfection ▪ the forme of the Covenant was known by superadded Revelation , and not written naturally in his heart .

Whether the threatning and punishment do belong to it only as it is a Law , or also as it is a Covenant , is of no great moment ; seeing it is really mixt of both . It is called in Scripture also , the curse of the Covenant : Deut. 29. 20. 21.

THESIS . IIII.

THe first Covenant made with Adam did promise life upon condition of perfect obedience , and threaten death upon the least disobedience .

EXPLICATION .

THe promise of life is not expressed , but plainly implyed in the threatning of death . That this life promised was onely the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradice , is the judgement of most Divines : But what death it was that is there threatned , is a Question of very great difficulty , and some moment . The same damnation that followeth the breach of the New Covenant , it could not be : no more then the life then enjoyed is the same with that which the New Covenant promiseth . And I cannot yet assent to their judgement , who think it was onely that death which consisteth in a meer separation of soule and body : or also in the annihilation of both . Adams separated soule must have enjoyed happinesse , or endured misery : For that our soules when separated are in one of these conditions , and not annihilated or insensible , I have proved by twenty Arguments from Scripture in another booke . As Adams life in Paradise was , no doubt incomparably beyond ours in happinesse ; so the death threatned in that Covenant was a more terrible death then our temporall death . For though his losse by a temporall death would have bin greater then ours now ; yet hee would not have bin a Subject capable of privation , if annihilated ; nor however capable of the sense of his losse . A great losse troubleth a dead man no more then the smallest . Therefore as the joy of Paradise would have bin a perpetuall joy , so the sorrow and pain it is like would have bin perpetuall , and wee perpetuated capable Subjects . See Barlow exercit . utrum melius sit miserum esse quam non esse ? I do not thinke that all the deliverance that Christs Death procured , was onely from a temporall death or annihilarion : or that the death which hee suffered was aequivalent to no more .

THESIS . V.

THis Covenant being soon by man violated , the threatning must bee fulfulled , and so the penalty suffered .

EXPLICATION .

WHether there were any flat necessity of mans suffering after the fall , is doubted by many , and denyed by Socinus . Whether this necessity ariseth from Gods naturall Justice , or his Ordinate , viz. his Decree , and the verity of the threatning , is also with many of our own Divines a great dispute : whether God might have pardoned sinne , if he had not said , the sinner shall die , may be doubted of ( though I believe the affirmative , yet I judge it a frivolous presumptuous question . But the word of his threatning being once past , methinks , it should bee past question that hee cannot absolutely pardon , without the apparent violation of his Truth , or Wisdome . Some think that it proceedeth from his Wisdome rather then his Justice , that man must suffer : see Mr. Io. Goodwin of justif . part. 2. pag. 34. ) but why should we separate what God hath conjoyned ? However , whether Wisdome , or justice , or Truth ( or rather all these ) were the ground of it , yet certaine it is , that a necessity there was that the penalty should be inflicted : or else the Son of God should not have made satisfaction , nor sinners bear so much themselves .

THESIS . VI

THis penalty the offender himselfe could not bear , without his everlasting undoing .

EXPLICATION .

THat is , not the full penalty : for part of it hee did beare , and the Earth for his sake : and ( as I think ) all mankind doth beare part of it to this day . But the full penalty would have bin a greater and everlasting suffering .

THESIS VII .

(1) Iesus Christ at the Will of his Father , (2) and upon his own Will , (3) being perfectly furnished for this Worke , (4) with a Divine power , (5) and personall Righteousnesse , (6) first undertooke , (7) and afterward discharged this debt ; (8) by suffering what the Law did threaten , and the offender himselfe was unable to beare

EXPLICATION .

(1) THe Love of God to the World was the first womb where the worke of Redemption was conceived , Ioh. 3. 16. ( as it is taken conjunct with his own glory . ) The Eternal Wisdome and Love found out and resolved on this way of recovery , when it never entered into the thoughts of man to contrive or desire it .

(2) The Will of the Father and the Son are one : The Son was a voluntary undertaker of this task : it was not imposed upon him by constraint : when he is said to come to do his Fathers Will ( Heb. 10. 7. 9. ) it doth also include his own Will. And where he is said to do it in obedience to the Father , as it is spoken of a voluntary obedience , so is it spoken of the execution of our Redemption , and in regard to the humane nature especially ; and not of the undertaking by the divine Nature alone . Not only the consent of Christ did make it lawfull that he should be punished being innocent , but also that speciall power which as he was God he had over his own life more then any creature hath : Ioh. 10. 18. I have power 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith Christ , to lay down my Life .

( 3. ) No meere creature was qualifyed for this worke : even the Angels that are righteous do but their duty , and therefore cannot supererrogate or merit for us . Neither were they able to beare and overcome the penalty .

( 4. ) It must therefore be God that must satisfy God ; both for the perfection of the Obedience , for dignifying of the duty and suffering , for to be capable of meriting , for the bearing of the curse , and for the overcomming of it , and doing the rest of the workes of the Mediatorship , which were to be done after the Resurrection . Yet meere God it must not be , but man also : or else it would have been forgivenesse without satisfaction , seeing God cannot be said to make satisfaction to himselfe . Many other reasons are frequently given by Divines to prove the necessity of Christs Incarnation , Act. 20 , 28. Heb. 1. 1 , 2 , 3.

( 5. ) Had not Christ been perfectly righteous himselfe he had not been capable of satisfying for others : Yet is it not necessary that he must be in all respects a fulfiller of Righteousnesse before he begin the work of satisfaction , or that his righteousnesse and satisfaction be so distinct , as that the same may not be both righteousnesse and satisfactory .

Though ▪ many great Divines do so distinguish between Iustitiam personae , & Iustitiam meriti , as that the former is only a preparatory to the latter ; yet I cannot see any reason but the same obedience of Christ to the whole Law may be both personall and meritorious , ( of the righteousnesse of the Divine nature , or the habituall righteousnesse of the humane nature , I do not now dispute . ) Therefore I do not mean that all Christs personall righteousnesse was only preparatory to his satisfaction and merit , when I speak of his being furnished with a personall Righteousnesse , though I confesse I was long of that judgement . See more after at pag. 45.

( 6. ) The undertaking of the Son of God to satisfie , was effectuall before his actuall satisfying : As a man that makes a purchase , may take possession and enjoy the thing purchased upon the meere bargaine made , or earnes paid , before he have fully paid the sum . To this purpose most understand that in Rev. 13. 8. whose names were not written in the book of life , of the lambe slaine from the foundation of the World : But I doubt not but Weemse his interpretation is the plaine truth ; that the words [ from the foundation of the World ] have reference to the writing of their names in the book of Life , and not to the slaying of the Lambe , as being thus to be read , whose names were not written in the book of life of the slain Lambe , from the foundation of the World . It hath the same sence with Rev. 17. 8. which doth expound this in leaving out the mention of the slaying of the Lambe .

( 7. ) I know mans guilt and ●●●igation to suffer , is but Metaphorically called his debt . Therefore when we would search into the nature of these things exactly , wee must rather conceive of God as the Lawgiver and Governour of the World , then as a creditor , lest the Metaphor should mislead us . Yet because it is a common & a Scripture phrase , and conveniently expresseth our Obligation to beare the penalty of the violated Law , I use it in that sense .

But here we are cast upon many and weighty and very difficult Questions . Whether Christ did discharge this debt by way of solution or by way of satisfaction ? 2. whether in his suffering and our escape the threatning of the Law was executed or dispensed with ? 3. And if dispensed with , how it can stand with the truth and justice of God ? 4. And whether sinners may thence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the threatnings in the Gospell ? 5. And whether the faithfull may not feare lest God may relaxe a promise as well as a threatning ? 6. And lastly whether if the Law be relaxable , God might not have released his Son from the suffering , rather then have put him to so great torment , and so have freely pardoned the offendours ? I shall briefly answer to all these .

1. Quest. Meere and proper solution or payment is , when the very same thing is paid which w●● in the obligation , or suffered which was threatned . This payment the creditor cannot refuse ; nor the Ruler refuse this suffering , nor to acquit the person that hath so payed or suffered .

Satisfaction is the paying of somewhat that was not directly in the Obligation , but is given to satisfye the creditor in stead of the debt , which payment the Creditor may chuse to accept ; and if hee do not consent to accept it , though it were paid , yet the debtour should not be acquit . So also in regard of suffering .

Here we take payment and satisfaction in the strict legall sence and not in the large sence wherein they are confounded . And now the Question is , whether Christs suffering were the payment of the very debt , or of somewhat else in its stead ? The resolving of this depends upon the resolving of two other quaestions both great and difficult .

1. What it was which the Law did threaten 2. What it was that Christ did suffer ?

1. Various are the judgements 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 , ●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 ? Many Divines say , that God did not take away his Image , but man thrust it away : So Capell of Temptations , pag. 8. &c. Though most judge otherwise , because the same power must annihilate that must create .

I conclude then , that in regard of the proper penalty , Christ did suffer a paine and misery of the same sort , and of equall weight with that threatned ; but yet because it was not in all respects the same , it was rather satisfaction then the payment of the proper debt , being such a payment as God might have chosen to accept .

The 2. Question was , Whether the threatning was executed , or relaxed and dispensed with ?

Answ. The Answer to this is plaine in the answer to the former .

In regard of the meer weight of punishment , considered as abstracted from person & duration , it was executed & not relaxed ; yet taking the threatning intirely as it was given out , and we must say it was dispensed with ; for mankinde doth not suffer all that is there threatned .

Yet some , who think that the death threatned did consist in out present miseries and temporal death onely , do also think that the threatning is fully executed upon the sinners , and that Christ hath onely delivered us from the accidentall duration of it , but not prevented the execution .

If I could think that the threatning intended no punishment to the soule further , after it is separated from the body , then I should think as they .

The 3. Question is , How it can stand with ▪ the Truth and Justice of God to dispense ▪ with his Threats ? Concerning his Justice , the question is not difficult , & I shall say nothing to that ; all the question is , how to reconcile this dispensation with Gods truth . Here you must distinguish , 1. Betwixt the letter of the Law and the sense . 2. Between the Law and the end of the Law . 3. Between a Threat with exception either expressed or reserved , and that which hath no exception . 4. Between a threatning which onely expresseth the desert of the sinne , and what punishment is due , and so falleth only under the will of precept , and that which also intendeth the certaine prediction of event , and so falleth under the will of purpose also . And now I answer :

1. The end of the Law is the Law , and that end being the manifestation of Gods Justice and hatred of sinne , &c. was fulfilled , and therefore the Law was fulfilled .

2. Most think that the Threatning had this reserved exception , [ Thou shalt dye , i. e. by thy selfe , or thy surety . ] And though it be sinfull in man to speak with mentall reservations when he pretends to reveale his mind , yet not in God , because as he is subject to no Law , so he is not bound to reveale to us all his minde , nor doth he indeed pretend any such thing .

3. So that the sense of the Law is fulfilled .

4. But the speciall answer that I give , is this , When Threatnings are meerly parts of the Law , and not also predictions of event and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabouts , then they may be dispensed with without any breach of Truth : For as when God saith , [ Thou shalt not eate of the Tree &c. ] the meaning is onely [ It is thy duty not to eate ] and not that eventually he should not eate : So when he saith ( Thou shalt die the death ) The meaning is , ( Death shall be the due reward of thy sinne , and so may be inflicted for it at my pleasure ) and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event . And I judge , that except there be some note added whereby it is apparent , that God intended also the prediction of event , no meer Threatning is to be understood otherwise but as it is a part of the Law , and so speaks of the duenesse of punishment onely , as the Precept speaks of the duenesse of obeying .

If this be Grotius his meaning , I assent , that Omnes minae quibus non adest irrevocabilitatis signum , intelligendae sunt ex suâpte naturâ dejure comminantis ad relaxandum nihil imminuere , ( viz. ) so farre as they are no predictions of event ; otherwise Gods bare prediction is a note of irrevocability : And his two notes , viz. An Oath , and a Promise , are not the onely signes of irrevocability : Gods Word is as sure as his Oath , and a Threatning as true as a Promise , and when it falls , under Voluntas propositi , will as surely be fulfilled . See Grotius de satisfactione Christi , cap. 3. & Vossium ejus defenforem .

The 4. Question is , whether sinners may not hence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the Threatnings in the New Covenant ? To this I answer .

1. No : For God hath fully discovered that it is his purpose and resolution to execute those Threats , and not to relax or reverse them ; that he will come in flaming fire to render vengeance on them that know not God , and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ , &c. 2. Thes. 1. 7 , 8. That there is no more sacrifice for sin , Heb. 10. 26 , 27. And hath revealed the manner how they shall be condemned , Mat. 25.

2. If there were any hope of this , yet were it unexpressable madnesse to venter ones everlasting state on that , when we see that God did not remit the penalty of the first Covenant wholly , but would have his justice satisfied , though by the suffering of his Sonne Christ : And yet that it also cost the offendors so deare themselves .

The 5. Question is , May we not feare lest God may dispense with his Promises as well as his Threats ? I answer :

1. He did not dispense with his Threatning , but upon a valuable consideration .

2. No ; for though the Promise as well as the Threat doe belong to the Law , and so discover what is due , rather then what shall come to passe , yet the thing promised being once our due , cannot be taken from us without our consent : and so , as Grotius saith , Ex promisione jus aliquod acquiritur ei cui facta est promtssio ; justice bindeth to give all to another that is his due , but not alwayes and absolutely to inflict upon an offender as much punishment as he deserveth .

3. Beside , God hath revealed it to be the will of his purpose also to confer the things promised in the Gospel upon all Beleevers .

The 6 and last Question was . If the Law be relaxable , whether God might not have freely remitted the offence , and have spared his Son his satisfactory sufferings ? I answer .

1. It yet remaines under dispute whether the Threat speak not de eventu , as to the sinne , though but de jure , as to the sinner ? And then the Truth of God would forbid a dispensation as to the sinne ,

2. Though the Threatning doe not flatly determine of the execution de eventu ; yet it intimates a strong probability of it , & seemes to tell the world , that ordinarily the Law-giver will proceed according thereto , and gives the sinner strong grounds to expect as much . Therefore if God should relax his Law , much more if he should wholly dispence with it by remission , the Law would seem to lose much of its authority , and the Law-giver be esteemed mutable .

3. Besides , as no good Lawes are lightly to be reversed , so , much lesse such as are so agreeable to order , and the nature of God and so solemnly enacted as this was .

4. Though GOD did dispense with his Law as to our impunity , because else mankind would have utterly perished , and because he is abundant in mercy and compassion ( Exo. 34. 7. Psal. 103. 8. & III. 4 , 5. & 145. 8. Isa. 55. 7. Ier. 31. 20. Luk 6. 36. Rom. 2. 4. ) yet he is also holy and just , and a hater of sinne ; and how would those his Attributes have been manifested or glorified , if he had let so many and great sinnes goe wholly unpunished . ( Prov. 11. 20. Psal. 5. 5. & 45. 8. Heb. 11. 2. Rom. 1. 18.

5. It would have encouraged men to sin and contemne the Law , if the very first breach and all other should be meerly remitted ; but when men see that God hath punished his Son when he was our surety , they may easily gather that he will not spare them , if they continue rebells .

6. The very end of the Law else would have been frustrated , which now is fulfilled by Christs satisfaction : For Proxima sunt idem & tantundem .

7. Besides the exceeding love of God that is manifested in this suffering of his Son , and the great engagemens that are laid upon the sinner .

They that will avoid all the supposed inconveniencies of this Doctrine of Gods dispencing with his Threatnings , must needs affirme , that the offenders do suffer as much , and the same which was threatned .

( 8. ) Whether we are justified onely by Christs Passive Righteousnesse , or also by his Active , is a very great dispute among Divines . By his Passive Righteousnesse is meant not onely his death , but the whole course of his humiliation , from the Assumption of the humane nature to his Resurrection . Yea , even his Obedientiall Actions so far as there was any suffering in them , and as they are considered under the notion of Suffering , and not of Duty or Obedience . By his Active Righteousnesse is meant the Righteousnesse of his Actions , as they were a perfect obedience to the Law . The chiefe point of difference and difficulty lyeth higher , How the Righteousnesse of Christ is made ours ? Most of our ordinary Divines say , that Christ did as properly obey in our roome and stead , as he did suffer in our stead ; and that in Gods esteem and in point of Law wee were in Christ obeying and suffering , and so in him wee did both perfectly fulfill the Commands of the Law by Obedience , and the threatnings of it by bearing the penalty ; and thus ( say they ) is Christs Righteousnesse imputed to us , viz. his Passive Righteousnesse for the pardon of our sins and delivering us from the penalty ; his Active Righteousnesse for the making of us righteous , and giving us title to the kingdom : And some say , the habituall Righteousnes of his humane nature instead of our own habituall Righteousnesse ; yea some adde the righteousnes of the divine nature also .

This opinion ( in my judgement ) containeth a great many of mistakes .

1. It supposeth us to have been in Christ , at least in legall title , before we did beleeve , or were born ; and that not onely in a generall and conditionall sense as all men , but in a speciall as the justified ; indeed we are elected in Christ before the foundation of the world , but that is a terme of diminution , and therefore doth not prove that we were then in him ; Neither Gods Decree or foreknowledge gives us any legall title .

2. It teacheth imputation of Christ Righteousnesse in so strict a sense , as will neither stand with reason , nor the Doctrine of Scripture , much lesse with the phrase of Scripture which mentioneth no imputation of Christ or his Righteousnesse to us at all ; and hath given great advantage to the Papists against us in this Doctrine of Justification .

3. It seemeth to ascribe to God a mistaking judgement , as to esteem us to have been in Christ when wee were not , and to have done and suffered in him , what we did not .

4. It maketh Christ to have paid the Idem , and not the Tantundem ; the same that was due , and not the value ; and so to justifie us by payment of the proper debt , and not by strict satisfaction . And indeed this is the very core of the mistake , to think that we have by delegation paid the proper debt of Obedience to the whole Law , or that in Christ we have perfectly obeyed ; whereas ; 1. It can neither be said , that we did it ; 2. And that which Christ did , was to satisfie for our non-payment and disobedience .

5. So it maketh Christ to have fulfilled the preceptive part of the Law in our stead and roome in as strict a sense , as he did in our room beare the punishment , which will not hold good ( though for our sakes he did both . )

6. It supposeth the Law to require both obedience and suffering in respect of the same time and actions , which it doth not . And whereas they say , that the Law requireth suffering for what is past , and Obedience for the future ; this is to deny that Christ hath satisfied for future sinnes . The time is neere when those future sins will be past also ; what doth the Law require then ? If we doe not obey for the future , then we sin ; if we sin , the Law requires nothing but suffering for expiation .

7. This opinion maketh Christs sufferings ( by consequence ) to be in vain , both to have been suffered needlesly by him , and to be needless also now to us : For if we did perfectly obey the Law in Christ , ( or Christ for us , according to that strict imputation , ) then therere is no use for suffering for disobedience .

8. It fondly supposeth a medium betwixt one that is just , and one that is guilty ; and a difference betwixt one that is just , and one that is no sinner ; one that hath his sin or gui●t taken away , and one that hath his unrighteousness taken away : It is true , in bruits and insensibles , that are not subjects capable of justice , there is a medium betwixt just and unjust , and innocency and justice are not the same . There is a negative injustice which deneminateth the subject non-justum , but not injustū , where Righteousness is not due : But where there is the debitum habendi , where Righteousness ought to be , & is not , there is no negative unrighteousness , but primative : As there is no middle betwixt strait and crooked , so neither between Conformity to the Law , ( which is Righteousness , ) and Deviation from it , which is unrighteousness . )

9. It maketh our Righteousness , to consist of two parts , viz. The putting away of our guilt , and the Imputation of Righteousness , i. e. 1. Removing the crookedness ; 2. Making them streight .

10. It ascribeth these two supposed parts to two distinct supposed causes ; the one to Christs fulfilling the Precept by his actual Righteousness , the latter to his fulfilling the threatning by his passive Righteousness : As 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 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 inten● 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 in execution of any part of the curse of the Law ?

3. Whether the sufferings of Beleevers are from the curse of the Law ? or only afflictions of Love , the curse being taken off by Christ ?

4. Whether it be not a wrong to the Redeemer , that the people whom he hath ransomed are not immediately delivered ?

5. Whether it be any wrong to the redeemed themselves ?

6. How long will it be till all the curse be taken off the Beleevers , and Redemption have attained its full effect ?

To the first Question I answer :

In this case the undertaking of satisfaction had the same immediate effect upon Adam , as the satisfaction it self upon us , or for us : To determine what these are , were an excellent work ; it being one of the greatest and noblest questions in our controverted Divinity , What are the immediate effects of Christs Death ? He that can rightly answer this , is a Divine indeed ; and by the help of this , may expedite most other controversies about Redemption and Justification . In a word , The effects of Redemption undertaken , could not be upon a subject not yet existent , and so no subject , though it might be for them : None but Adam and Eve were then existent . Yet as soon as we do exist , we receive benefit from it . The suspending of the rigorous execution of the sentence of the Law , is the most observable immediate effect of Christs death ; which suspension is some kinde of deliverance from it . Of the other effects elsewhere .

To the second Question . The Elect before conversion do stand in the same relation to the Law and Curse as other men , though they be differenced in Gods Decree , Eph. 2. 3●●2 .

To the third Question . I confess we have here a knotty Question . The common judgment is , That Christ hath taken away the whole curse ( though not the suffering ) by bearing it himself ; and now they are only afflictions of Love , and not Punishments . I do not contradict this doctrine through affectation of singularity , the Lord knoweth ; but through constraint of Judgement : And that upon these grounds following .

1. It is undenyable , that Christs taking the curse upon himself did not wholly prevent the execution upon the offendor , in Gen. 3. 7 , 8 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19.

2. It is evident from the event , seeing we feel part of the curse fulfilled on us : We eat in labour and sweat ; the earth doth bring forth thorns and bryars ; women bring forth their children in sorrow ; our native pravity is the curse upon our souls ; we are sick , and weary , and full of fears , and sorrows , and shame , and at last we dye and turn to dust .

3. The Scripture tells us plainly , that we all dye in Adam , ( even that death from which we must at the Resurrection be raised by Christ , ) 1 Cor. 15. 21 , 22. And that death is the wages of sin , Rom. 6. 23. And that the sickness , and weakness , and death of the godly is caused by their sins , 1 Cor. 11. 30 , 31. And if so , then doubtless they are in execution of the threatening of the Law , though not in full rigor .

4. It is manifest , that our sufferings are in their own nature evils to us , and the sanctifying of them to us taketh not away their natural evil , but only produceth by it , as by an occasion , a greater good : Doubtless so far as it is the effect of sin , it is evil , and the effect also of the law .

5. They are ascribed to Gods anger , as the moderating of them is ascribed to his love , Psal. 30. 5. and a thousand places more .

6. They are called punishments in Scripture , and therefore we may call them so , Lev. 26. 41 , 43. Lam ▪ 3. 39. & 4. 6 , 22. Ezra 9. 13. Hosea 4. 9. & 12. 2. Lev. 26. 18 , 24.

7. The very nature of affliction is to be a loving punishment , a natural evil sanctified , and so to be mixt of evil and good , as it proceedeth from mixt causes : Therefore to say that Christ hath taken away the curse and evil , but not the suffering , is a contradiction , because so far as it is a suffering it is to us evil , and the execution of the curse . What reason can be given , why God should not do us all that good without our sufferings , which now he doth by them , if there were not sin , and wrath and Law in them ? Sure he could better us by easier means .

8. All those Scriptures and Reasons that are brought so the contrary do prove no more but this , That our afflictions are not the rigorous execution of the threatning of the Law , that they are not wholly or chiefly in wrath ; but as the common Love of God to the wicked is mixt with hatred in their sufferings , and the hatred prevaileth above the love , so the sufferings of the godly proceed from a mixture of love and anger , and so have in them a mixture of good and evil ; but the Love overcoming the Anger , therefore the good is greater then the evil , and so death hath lost its sting , 1 Cor. 15. 55 , 56. There is no unpardoned sin in it , which shall procure further judgment , and so no hatred , though there be anger .

9. The Scripture saith plainly , That death is one of the enemies that is not yet overcome , but shall be last conquered , 1 Cor. 15. 26 , and of our corruption the case is plain .

10. The whole stream of Scripture maketh Christ to have now the sole disposing of us and our sufferings , to have prevented the full execution of the curse , and to manage that which lyeth on us for our advantage and good ; but no where doth it affirm that he suddenly delivereth us .

To the fourth Question : It can be no wrong to Christ , that we are not perfectly freed from all the curse and evil as soon as he had satisfied : 1. Because it was not the Couenant betwixt him and the Father . 2. It is not his own will , & volenti non fit injuria . 3. It is his own doing now to keep us under it , till he see the fittest time to release us . 4. Our sufferings are his means and advantages to bring us to his Will. Mankind having forfeited his life , is cast into prison till the time of full execution : Christ steppeth in , and buyeth the prisoners , with a full purpose , that none of them yet shall scape but those that take him for their Lord . To this purpose he must treat with them , to know whether they will be his subjects , and yield themselves to him , and his terms . Is it not then a likelier way to procure their consent , to treat with them in prison , then to let them out , and then treat ? and to leave some of the curse upon them , to force them to yield , that they may know what they must expect else , when the whole shall be executed .

To the fift Question : It is no wrong to the sinner to be thus dealt with ; 1. Because he is but in the misery which he brought upon himself . 2. No man can lay claim to the Satisfaction and Redemption upon the meer payment , till they have a word of 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 believeth not shall not see life , but the wrath of God abideth on him . Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 36. & 5. 24. & 6. 35 , 40 , 47. & 7. 38. & 11. 25 , 26. & 12. 46. Acts 10. 43. Rom. 3. 26. & 4. 5. & 5. 1. & 10. 4. 10. 1 Iohn 5. 10. Mark 1. 15. & 6. 12. Luke 13. 3. 5. & 24. 47. Acts 5. 31. & 11. 18. & 20. 21. & 2. 38. & 3. 19. & 8. 22. & 26. 20. Rev. 2. 5 , 16. Heb 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9.

EXPLICATION .

(1) CHrists Satisfaction to the Law goes before the new Covenant , though not in regard of its payment , ( which was in the fulness of time , ) yet in regard of the undertaking , acceptance and efficacy : There could be no treating on new terms , till the old obligation were satisfied and suspended .

I account them not worth the confuting , who tell us , That Christ is the only party conditioned with , and that the new Covenant , as to us , hath no conditions ; ( so Salt marsh , &c. ) The place they alledg for this assertion in that , Ier. 31. 31 , 32 , 33. cited in Heb. 8. 8 , 9 , 10. which place containeth not the full Tenor of the whole new Covenant : But either it is called the new Covenant , because it expresseth the nature of the benefits of the new Covenant as they are offered on Gods part , without mentioning mans conditions , ( that being not pertinent to the business the prophet had in hand ; or else it speaketh only of what God will do for his elect in giving them the first Grace , and enabling them to perform the conditions of the new Covenant , and in that sence may be called a new Covenant also , as I have shewed before , pag. 7. 8. Though properly it be a prediction , and belong only to Gods Will of Purpose , and not to his legislative Will.

But those men erroneously think , that nothing is a condition , but what is to be performed by our own strength . But if they will believe Scripture , the places before alledged will prove , that the new Covenant hath conditions on our part , as well as the old .

(2) Some benefit from Christ the condemned did here receive , as the delay of their condemnation , and many more mercies , though they turn them all into greater judgments : But of this more when we treat of generall Redemption .

THESIS XV.

THough Christ hath sufficiently satisfied the Law , yet is it not his Will , or the Will of the Father , that any man should be justified or saved thereby , who hath not some ground in himself of personall and particular right and claim thereto ; nor that any should be justified by the blood only as shed or offered , except it be also received and applyed ; so that no man by the meer Satisfaction made , is freed from the Law or curse of the first violated Covenant absolutely , but conditionally only .

EXPLICATION .

I Have shewed before , p. 57. 58. &c. That Christ intended not to remove all our misery as soon as he dyed , nor as soon as we believed . I am now to shew , That he doth not justifie by the shedding of his blood immediately , without somewhat of man intervening , to give him a legall title thereto . All the Scriptures alledged pag. 79. prove this : We are therefore said to be justified by faith . Let all the Antinomians shew but one Scripture which speaks of Justification from eternity . I know God hath decreed to justifie his people from eternity , and so he hath to sanctifie them too , but both of them are done in time : Justification being no more an imminent act in God then Sanctification , as I shall shew afterward .

The Blood of Christ then is sufficient in fuo genere , but not in omni genere sufficient for its own work , but not for every work . There are severall other necessaries to justifie and save , quibus positis , which being supposed ▪ the Blood of Christ will be effectuall : Not that it receives its efficacy from these , nor that these do add any thing at all to its worth or value ; no more then the Cabinet to the Jewel , or the applying hand to the medicine : or the offenders-acceptation to the pardon of his Prince ; yet without this acceptation and application this blood will not be effectuall to justifie us . For ( as Grotius ) Cum unusquisque actui ex suâ voluntate pendenti legem possit imponere , sicut id quod pure debetur novari potest sub conditione , ita etiam possunt , is qui solvit pro alio , & is qui rei alterius pro alterâ solutionem admittit , pacisci , ut aut statim sequatur remissio , aut in diem , item aut pure , aut sub conditione , Fuit autem & Christi satisfacientis & dei satisfactione in admittentis hic animus ac voluntas , hoc denique pactam & foedus , non ut deus statim ipso perpessionis Christi tempore paenas remitteret , sed ut tum demum id fieret ; cum homo , vera in Christum fide ad deum conversus , supplex veniam precaretur , accedente etiam Christi apud deum advocatione sive intercessione . Non obstat hic ergo satisfactio quo minus sequi possit remissio satisfactio enim nonjam sustulerat debitum , sed hoc egerat , ut propter ipsam debitum aliquando tolleretur , Grot. de satis . cap. 6. So that , as Austin ▪ he that made us without us , will not save us without us , He never maketh a relative change , where he doth not also make a reall . Gods Decree gives no man a legall title to the benefit decreed him , seeing purpose and promise are so different : A legall title we must have , before we can be justified ; and there must be somewhat in our selves to prove that title , or else all men should have equall right ,

THESIS . XVI .

THe obeying of a Law , and persorming the conditions of a Covenant , or satisfying for disobedience , or non-performance , is our Righteousness , in reference to that Law and Covenant .

EXPLICATION .

IF we understand not what Righteousnes is , we may dispute long enough about Justification to little purpose : you must know therefore that Righteousness is no proper reall Being , but a Modus Entis , the Modification of a Being , The subject of it is , 1. An Action , 2. Or a Person : An Action is the primary subject , and so the Disposition ; and the Person secondary , as being therefore righteous , because his disposition and actions are so .

Righteousness is the conformity of Dispositions and Actions , and consequently the person to the Rule prescribed .

It is not a being distinct therefore from the Dispositions and Actions , but their just and well being .

This finition is onely of the Creatures Righteousness .

God is the Primum Iustum , and so the Rule of Righteousness to the Creature , and hath no Rule but himself , for the measuring of his Actions .

Yet his Essence is too far above us , remote and unknown to be this Rule to the Creature , therefore hath he given us his Laws , which flow from his perfection , and they are the immediate Rule of our Dispositions and Actions and so of our Righteousness .

Here carefully observe , That this Law hath two parts ; 1. The Precept and Prohibition prescribing and requiring Duty : 2. The Promise and Commination determining of the reward of Obedience , and penalty of Disobedience . As the Precept is the principall part , and the Penalty annexed but for the Precepts sake ; so the primary intent of the Law-giver is the obeying of his Precepts , and our suffering of the Penalty is but a secondary for the attaining of the former .

So is there accordingly a two-fold Righteousness or fulfilling of this Law , ( which is the thing I would have observed : ) the primary , most excellent and most proper Righteousness lyeth in the conformity of our actions to the precept : The secondary , less excellent Righteousness ) yet fitly enough so called ) ( see Pemble of Iustificat . pag. ● . ) is , when though we have broke the precepts , yet we have satisfied for our breach , either by our own suffering , or some other way .

The first hath reference to the Commands when none can accuse us to have broak the Law : The second hath reference to the Penalty ; when though we have broke the law , yet it hath nothing against us for so doing , because it is satisfyed . These two kinds of Righteousnesse cannot stand together in the same person , in regard of the same Law and Actions : he that hath one , hath not the other : he that hath the First , need not the Second ; There must be a fault , or no satisfaction ; this fault must be confessed , and so the first kind of Righteousnesse disclaimed , before Satisfaction can be pleaded : and Satisfaction must be pleaded , before a Dilinquent can be justified . This well understood , would give a clearer insight into the nature of our Righteousness , and Justification , then many have yet attained . The great Question is , of which sort is our Righteousness whereby we are justified ? I answer , of the second sort , which yet is no derogation from it : for though it be not a Righteousness so honouring our selves , yet is it as excellent in Christ , and honourable to him . And this first kinde of Righteousness as it is in Christ , cannot retaining its own form , be made ours . And to that the Papists arguments will hold good . The Law commanded our own personall obedience , and not another for us ; We did not so personally obey , we did not really obey in Christ : and God doth not judge us to do , what we did not ; If we had , yet it would not have made us just : for one sin will make us unjust , though we were never so obedient before and after ; Therefore if we had obeyed in Christ , and yet sinned in our selves , we are breakers of the Law still . And so our Righteousness cannot be of the first sort . This Breach therefore must be satisfied for , and consequently , our Righteousness must be of the second sort : seeing both cannot stand in one person as beforesaid . Christ indeed had both these kinds of righteousness , viz. the righteousness of perfect Obedience ; and the righteousness of Satisfaction , for Disobedience . But the former only was his own personall Righteousnes , not communicable to another under that notion , and in that form of [ a Righteousness by obeying : ] The latter , was his righteousness , as he stood in our room , and was by imputation a sinner : and so is also our Righteousness in and through him . Yet the former ( as I have proved before &c. ) is ours too , and our Righteousness too ( though many Divines think otherwise : ) but how ? Not as retaining its form , in the former sence : but as it is also in a further consideration , a part of the Righteousness by Satisfaction : seeing that Christs very personall obedientiall righteousness was also in a further respect satisfactory . I intreat thee Reader , do not pass over this distinct representation of Righteousness , as curious , or needless ; for thou canst not tell how thou art righteous or justified without it . Nor do thou through prejudice reject it as unsound , till thou have first well studied the Nature of Righteousness in generall , and of Christian Righteousness in speciall .

THESIS . XVII .

THerefore as there are two Covenants , with their distinct Conditions : so is there a twofold Righteousness , and both of them absolutely necessary to Salvation .

EXPLICATION .

AS Sin is defined to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Trangression of the Law . 1. Ioh. 3. 4. So Righteousness is a Conformity to the Law . Therefore as there is a twofold Law or Covenant ; so must there be accordingly a two-fold Righteousness ; whether both these be to us necessary is all the doubt . If the first Covenant be totally repealed , then indeed we need not care for the righteousness of that Covenant , in respect of any of our personall actions : but only in respect of Adams first , and ours in him , But I have proved before that it is not repealed : otherwise the righteousness of Christ imputed to us , would not be of a very narrow extent ; if it were a covering only to our first transgression . I take it for granted therefore , that he must have a two-fold Righteousness answerable to the two Covenants , that expecteth to be justifyed . And the usuall confounding of these two distinct Righteousnesses , doth much darken the controversies about Justification .

THESIS XVIII .

OVr Legal Righteousness , or righteousness of the first Covenant is not personall , or consisteth not in any qualifications of our own persons , or actions performed by us , ( For we never fulfilled , nor personally satisfied the Law : ) but it is wholly without us in Christ . And in this sence it is that the Apostle ( and every Christian , ) disclaimeth his own Righteousness , or his own Works , as being no true legall Righteousness . Phil. 3. 7 , 8.

EXPLICATION .

Object. 1 DOth not the Apostle say , that as touching the Righteousness which is in the Law , he was blameless ? Phil. 3. 6. Ans. That is , He ●o exactly observed the Ceremoniall Law , and the externall part of the Morall Law , that no man could blame him for the breach of them . But this is nothing to such a keeping of the whole Covenant , as might render him blameless in the sight of God : otherwise he would not have esteemed it so lightly .

Object . 2. There are degrees of Sin . He that is not yet a sinner in the highest degree , is he not so far Righteous by a personall Righteousness ? Christ satisfied only for our sin ; so far as our actions are not sinfull , so far they need no pardon nor satisfaction . And consequently , Christs righteousness and our own works , do concur to the composing of our perfect Righteousness . Ans. Though this objection doth puzle some , as if there were no escaping this Popish self-exalting Consequence ; yet by the help of the fore-going grounds , the vanity of it may be easily discovered . And that thus .

1. An Action is not righteous , which is not conformable to the Law ; if in some respects it be conformable , and in some not , it cannot be called a conformable or righteous Action . So that we having no actions , perfectly : conformed to the Law , have therefore no one righteous action . 2. If we had ; Yet many righteous Actions , if but one were unrighteous , will 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 them , and some that are no Antinomians have star●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. 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 ( 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 Satisfaction is imputed to us , instead of the value of a perfect Obedience of our own performing , and the value of our Faith is not so imputed : But because there must be some personall performance of homage , therefore the personall performance of Faith shall be imputed to us for a sufficient personall payment , as if we had paid the full rent , because Christ whom we believe in , hath paid it , & he will take this for satisfactory homage ; so it is in point of personall performance , and not of value that Faith is imputed .

THESIS XXIV .

THis personall Gospell Righteousness is in its kind a perfect Righteousness ; and so far we may admit the doctrine of personall Perfection .

EXPLICATION .

OUr Righteousness may be considered , either in regard of the matter and the acts denominated righteous , or else in respect of the form which gives them that denomination : Also our Faculties and Actions are considerable , either in regard of their Being , or of their Quality .

1. The perfection of the Being of our Faculties or Acts is nothing to our present purpose , as falling under a physicall consideration only .

2. In regard of their Quality they may be called perfect or imperfect in severall sences .

1 As Perfection is taken for the transcendentall perfection of Being so they are perfect .

2. And as it is taken for the compleat number of all parts , it is perfect .

3. But as it is taken for that which is perfect , Efficienter or Participaliter , that is , for a work that is finished for the Author , so our holiness is still imperfect here .

4. And as it is taken for accidentall perction , ( so called in Metaphysicks , when it wants nothing which beyond the Essence , is also requisite to the integrity , ornament and well being of it , ) so our holiness is here imperfect .

5. As perfection is taken , pro sanitate , for soundness , so our holiness is imperfect .

6. And as it is taken , pro maturitate , for ripeness , so it is imperfect .

7. In respect of the admixture of contrary qualities , our holiness is imperfect .

8. But whether all this imperfection be privative and sinfull , or meerly negative ; and only our misery , whether it be a privation , physicall or morall , is a question that will be cleared , when I come to shew the extent of the Commands or Rule .

But not any of these kinds of perfection is that which I mean in the Position : Holiness is a quality , & may be intended and remitted , in creased & decreased ; but it is the relative consideration of these qualities of our faculties and acts , as they are compared with the Rule of the new Covenant ; & so it is not the perfection of our holiness that we enquire after , but of our righteousness ; which righteousness is not a quality as holiness is , but the modification of our acts as to the Rule , which is not varyed , secundum majus & minus : See Schibl . Metaph. li. 2 , c. 9. Tit. 7. Art . 2. Therefore our Divines usually say , That our Justification is perfect , though our Sanctification be not ; and then I am sure our Righteousness must be perfect .

A two-fold perfection is here implyed . 1. A Metaphysical Perfection of Being . 2. A Perfection of Sufficiency in order to its end .

1. The being of our Righteousness formally consisting in our relative conformity to the rule , either it must be perfect , or not at all . He that is not perfectly innocent in the very point that he is accused , is not innocent truly , but guilty . Sincerity is usually said to be our Gospel-Perfection : not as it is accepted in stead of perfection , but as it is truly so ; for sincere Faith is our conformity to the Rule of Perfection , viz. the new Covenant as it is a Covenant ; yet as it is sincere Faith , it is only materially our Righteousness and Perfection , but formally as it is relatively our conformity to the said Rule .

2. Our Righteousness is perfect as in its Being , so also in order to its end . The end is , to be the condition of our Justification , &c. This end it shall perfectly attain . The Tenor of the new Covenant is not , Believe in the highest degree , and you shall be justified ; But believe sincerely , and you shall be justified ; so that our Righteousness 1. formally considered , in relation to the condition of the new Covenant , is perfect or none . 2. But considered materially as it is holiness , either in reference to the degree it should attain , or the degree which it shall attain , or in reference to the excellent object which it is excercised about , or in reference to the old Covenant , or the directive , ( and in some sence ) the preceptive part of the new Covenant ; in all these respects it is imperfect .

I speak not all this while of that perfection in Christs Satisfaction , which is also our perfect Righteousness , because few will question the perfection of that .

THESIS XXV .

YEt is it an improper speech of some Divines , That Christ first justifieth our persons , and then our duties and actions : And except by [ justifying ] they mean , his esteeming them to be a fulfilling of the Gospell Conditions , and so unjust , it is unsound and dangerous , as well as improper .

EXPLICATION .

1. IT is improper in the best sence : 1. Because it is contrary to the Scripture use of the word [ Iustifying ] : which is the acquitting of us from the charge of breaking the Law , and not from the charge of violating the new Covenant , 2 , It is against the nature of the thing ; seeing Justification ( as you shall see anon ) implyeth Accusation ; but the esteeming of a righteous action to be as it is , doth not imply any accusation . 3. This speech , joyning Justification of Persons and Actions together , doth seem to intimate the same kinde of justification of both , and so doth tend to seduce the hearers to a dangerous error . 2. For if it be understood in the worst sence , it will overthrow the Righteousness of Christ imputed , and the whole scope of the Gospell , and will set up the doctrine of Justification by Works . For if God do justifie our Works from any legall Accusation , ( as he doth our persons , ) then it will follow , That our Works are just and consequently we are to be justified by them . There is no room for Scripture-justification where our own Works are not first acknowledged unjustifiable : because there is no place for Satisfaction and Justification thereby from another , where we plead the Justification of our own Works in respect of the same Law . Justification of Works is a sufficient ground for Iustification by Works : seeing the justness of his dispositions and actions is the ground of denominating the person just , and that according to the primary and most proper kinde of Righteousness as is expressed in the distinction of it , pag. 98 , 99.

THESIS XXVI .

(1) NEither can our performance of the conditions of the Gospel in the most proper and strict sence , be said to merit the reward : seeing there is nothing in the value of it , or any benefit that God receiveth by it , which may so entitle it meritorious ; neither is there any 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 Lea●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 Coven●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 Gospel-conditions , doth bear the punishment himself in eternall fire , and therefore Christ did not bear it : So that as it was not so grievous a death which was threatened in the first Covenant , as that is which is threatened in the second ; so it was not so grievous a kind of death which Christ did bear , as that is which finall unbelievers shall bear , ( except as ●he accumulation of sins of so many might increase it , ) Therefore when we say , That Christ suffered in his Soul the pains of hell , or that which is equall ; we must not mean the pains which is threatned in the Gospell , and the damned unbelievers must endure ; but only of that death which the Law of Works did threaten . Wo therefore to the rebellious unbelieving world , that must bear this second death themselves : For of how much soever punishment shall they be thought worthy , who tread under foot the blood of the Covenant ? Heb. 10. 29.

THESIS . XXXIV .

THe Covenant of Grace is not properly said to be violated , or its conditions broken , except they be finally broken : For the violation consisteth in non performance of the conditions , and if they are performed at last , they are truly performed , & if performed , then the Covenant is not so violated , as that the offendor should fall under the threatening thereof .

EXPLICATION .

I Deny not but the new Covenant may be said to be neglected , and sinned against , and the Command of Christ broken by our long standing out in unbelief , though we come home at last . But the Covenant conditions are not broken , when ever the precept of the Gospel is transgressed , or the Covenant neglected , except it be finall . The Condition is , Who ever believeth shall be saved , not limitting it to a particular season . Though both the precept of Christ , & common Reason requireth that we be speedy in the performance , because we have no promise that the day of Grace shall continue , and because our neglect will increase our disability , and our frequent resisting Will grieve the Spirit : So that the new Covenant doth not threaten death to every particular act of disobedience or unbelief , nor to any but what is finall , though the precept require that we believe immediately , and every degree of unbelief be forbidden .

THESIS XXXV .

YEt the sins of Beleevers against the Gospel Precepts have need of pardon , and are properly said to be pardoned , in reference to their deserved punishment ; 1. Both because the punishment , which naturally and implicitely is due to them , is not so much as threatened in this gentle Covenant , and so becomes not explicitely due , or in point of Law . 2. But specially because the old Covenant condemning all sin , is yet unrepealed , which would be executed on us , even for our sins against GRACE , did not the efficacy of CHRISTS Satisfaction dayly interpose , which makes us therefore have continuall need of that Satisfaction .

EXPLICATION .

THis is layd down to prevent the Objection which might arise from the fore-going Doctrine : For many are ready to ask , If Christ dyed not for sin as it is against the Gospell-Covenant , then how are such sins pardoned to Beleevers ? I answer , in the fore-expressed way : For certainly the Gospel cannot be said to remit the punishment which it never threatened , ( further then as it is only implicitely due ; ) And that which it doth threaten it doth never remit .

THESIS XXXVI .

THe pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God , discharging the Offender by the Gospell-Promise , or grant from the Obligation , to punishment , upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ , accepted by the sinner , and pleaded with God .

EXPLICATION .

THe true definition of Pardon , and of Justification doth much conduce to the understanding of this whole mysterious Doctrine . The former I have here laid down as neer as I can . I shall briefly explain the whole Definition ,

1. I call it an Act of God ; for so the Scripture ordinarily doth . Mat. 6. 12. 14 , 15. Mar. 11. 24. 26. Luk. 23. 34. Ephes. 3. 32. Some may object ; If all things be delivered into the hands of Christ the Redeemer , and all Judgement committed to the Son , as is shewed before , then the Son should forgive rather then the Father . I answer . 1. So the Son is said to forgive also , Mar. 2. 7 , 10. Luk. 5. 24. 2. I shewed you before , That the Father giveth not away any power from himself by giving it to the Son ; but onely doth manage it in another way upon other terms . 3. As the Mediator is a middle person , interposing between God and the world for their reconciliation , so the Acceptance , Pardon and Kingdom of the Mediator , is , as it were a Mean or step towards the Pardon , Acceptance , and Kingdom of God . First Christ doth cleanse men by his Spirit , and Blood , and then offereth them blameless and undefiled , without spot or wrinkle to God , who so accepts them at his hands , and even the Kingdom also will he deliver up to the Father , Ephes. 5. 27. Col. 1. 22 , 28. Iude 24. 1 Cor. 15. 24. Therefore the Sons pardoning and accepting being first in order of Nature , and so but a mean to Gods pardoning and accepting where the whole work is compleatly perfected , ( when the sinner is fully brought home by Christ to God , from whom he first fell , the act of pardoning is therefore most usually and fitly ascribed to the Father , ( that being the ultimate perfecting pardon , ) and we are said to ask it of him through Christ .

2. I call this Pardon , a gracious Act ; For if it were not in some sort gratuitous , or free , it were no Pardon . Let those think of this , who say , We have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ , and are therefore righteous . If the proper debt either of obedience or suffering be payd , either by our selves , or by another , then there is no place left for Pardon : For when the Debt is payd , we owe nothing ( except obedience de novo ; ) and therefore can have nothing forgiven us . For the Creditor cannot refuse the proper Debt , nor deny an Acquittance upon receit thereof . But Christ having payd the Tantundem and not the Idem , the Value and not the strict Debt , this satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept , or to have discharged us upon Christs sufferings : which yet because he freely doth , therefore is his gracious Act properly called Pardon .

The ignorant Antinomians think , it cannot be a Free Act of Grace , if there be any Condition on our part for enjoying it . As if in the fore-mentioned comparison , pag. 153. the Tenants redemption were the less free , because his new Lease requires the Rent of a pepper corn in token of homage ! As if when a pardon is procured for a condemned Malefactor , upon condition that he shall not reject it when it is offered him , but shall take him that procured it for his Lord , that this were therefore no free pardon ! Indeed if we payd but a mite in part of the debt it self , so far our pardon were the less free . But I will not further trouble the Reader with these senceless conceits , the confutation whereof is so easie and obvious .

3. I call this Act [ a Discharging ] as being the proper term in Law to express it by . We were before charged by the Law : we are by this Act discharged .

4. I call it a discharge of [ the Offender : ] For an offender is the only capable object or recipient of it . There can be no pardon where there is no offender .

5. I call it a discharging [ from the Obligation to Punishment . ] For. 1. You must look at this whole process as legall , and not as referring chiefly to Gods secret judgment or thoughts . Therefore when it is called a freeing man from the wrath of God , you must understand it onely of the wrath threatened in the Covenant , and so from [ the obligation to Punishment . ] You must not conceive of the change in God , but in the sinners relation , and consequently in the sence and sentence of the Law , as to him . 2. The common word by which this terminus a quo , or rather the evil which this pardon doth directly free us from , is expressed , is Guilt . But because the word Guilt is variously used , sometimes referring onely to the Fact , sometimes to the desert of Punishment , and sometime to the dueness of Punishment or the Laws obliging the Offendor to bear it ; I have therefore here taken it in this last expression , because I think that Guilt is taken away only in this last sence ; as I shall further open anon . Therefore many define Guilt only in this last sence , Reatus est Obligatio ad Poenam . This Obligation though expressed only in the Covenant , yet ariseth also from the Fact : For if the Covenant had not been broken , it had not obliged to suffering ; but still to duty only .

6. I call it a Discharging [ by the Gospell-promise or grant : ] ( It is called a Promise in reference to the benefit as future , but more properly a Grant in reference to the benefit as present or past ; either in the conferring , or already conferred . ) This I do for these Reasons . 1. To clear the nature of this Act. 2. To divert your thoughts from Gods secret judgment , where most suppose this Act performed ; and to turn them right , and free God from the imputation of change .

A great question it is , Whether Remission and Justification be immanent or transient Acts of God ? The mistake of this one point was it that led those two most excellent , famous Divines . Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble to that error and pillar of Antinomianism , viz. Iustification from Eternity . For ( saith Dr. Twisse often ) All Acts immanent in God , are from Eternity : but Justification and remission of sin are immanent Acts : therefore , &c. by [ immanent in God ] they must needs mean Negatively , not Positively . For Acts have not the respect of an Adjunct to its subject , but an effect to its cause . Now whether all such immanent Acts are any more eternall then transient Acts , is much questioned : As for God to know that the world doth now exist ; That such a man is sanctified , or just , &c. Gods fore-knowledg is not a knowing that such a thing is , which is not ; but that such a thing will be , which is not . Yet doth this make no change in God : no more then the Sun is changed by the variety of Creatures which it doth enlighten and warm ; or the Glass by the variety of faces which it represents ; or the eye by the variety of the colours , which it beholdeth : ( For whatsoever some say , I do not think that every variation of the object maketh a reall change in the eye , or that the beholding of ten distinct colours at one view , doth make ten distinct acts of the sight , or alterations on it : Much less do the objects of Gods knowledg make such alterations . ) But grant that all Gods immanent Acts are Eternall ( which I think is quite beyond our understanding to know : ) Yet most Divines will deny the Minor ; and tell you that Remission and Justification are transient Acts ; Which is true : But a Truth which I never had the happiness to see or hear well cleared by any . For to prove it a transient act , they tell us no more , but that it doth transire in subjectum extraneum , by making a morall change on our Relation , though not a reall upon our persons , as Sanctification doth . But this is only to affirm and not to prove ; and that in generall only ; not telling us what Act it is that maketh this change . Relations are not capable of being the Patients or subjects of any Act : seeing they are but meer Entia Rationis , and no reall Beings . Neither are they the immediate product or effect of any Act : but in order of Nature are consequentiall to the direct effects . The proper effect of the Act is to lay the Foundation from whence the Relation doth arise . And the same Act which layeth the Foundation doth cause the Relation , without the intervention of any other . Suppose but the subjectum fundamentum & terminus , and the Relation will unavoydably follow , by a meer resultancy . The direct effect therefore of Gods Active Justification must be a reall effect , though not upon the sinner , yet upon something else for him ; and thence will his Passive Justification follow . Now what transient Act this is , and what its immediate reall Effect , who hath unfolded ? I dare not be to confident in so dark a point : but it seemeth to me , that this justifying transient Act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant , wherein Justification is conferred upon every Beleever . Here , 1. The passing and enacting this Grant is a transient Act. 2. So may the continuance of it ( as I think . ) 3. This Law or Grant hath a morall improper Action , whereby it may be said to pardon or justifie ; which properly is but virtuall justifying . 4. By this Grant God doth , 1. Give us the Righteousness of Christ , to be ours when we beleeve : 2. And disableth the Law to oblige us to punishment , or to condemn us : 3. Which reall Foundation being thus layd , our Relations of [ Justified and Pardoned in title of Law ] do necessarily result .

Object . But this Act of God , in granting Pardon to Beleevers , was performed long ago : But our Justification is not till we beleeve . Answ. Though the effects of Causes as Physicall do follow them immediately , yet as Morall they do not so : but at what distance the Agent pleases sometimes . A man makes his son a Deed of Gift of certain Lands , to be his at such an age , or upon the performance of some eminent Action . Here the Deed of gift is the fathers instrument by which he giveth these Lands : The passing this Deed is the proper Act and time of Donation : Yet the son hath no possession till the time prefixed , or till the Condition be performed : At which time , the conditionall Grant becoming absolute , and giving him right to present possession , it is not unfitly said , that his father doth even then bestow the Lands : though by no new intervening act at all , but only the continuation of the former Deed of gift in force . So here , the conditionall grant of Pardon & Justification doth then absolutely pardon and justifie us , when we perform the Condition . Hence is the phrase in Scripture of being [ Iustified by the Law : ] which doth not only signifie [ by the Law as the Rule to which men did fit their actions ; ] but also [ by the Law , as not condemning , but justifying , the person whose actions are so fitted : ] In which sence the Law did justifie Christ : or else the Law should not justifie as a Law or Covenant , but only as a Direction : which properly is not Justifying , but only a means to discover that we are Justifiable . As the Word of Christ shall judge men at the last day , Ioh. 12. 28. So doth it virtually now , And if it judge , then doth it condemn and justifie . So Rom. 2. 12. Iam. 2 ▪ 12. We shall be judged by the Law of Liberty . Gal. 5. 3. 4 , 23. In the same sence , as the Law is said to convince and curse ( Iam. 2. 9. Gal. 3. 13. ) it may be said that the Gospell or new Law doth acquit , justifie and bless . Rom. 8. 12. The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus , hath made me from the Law of Sin and Death . As the Law worketh Wrath , and where is no Law , there is no Transgression , ( Rom. 4. 15. ) And as sin is not imputed where there is no Law , ( Rom. 5. 13. and the strength of sin is the law , ( 1 Cor. 15. 56 So the new law is the strength of Righteousness , and worketh Deliverance from Wrath ; and were there no such new Covenant , there would be no Righteousness inherent or imputed : Ioh. 7. 51.

So that I conclude , That this transient Act of God , pardoning and justifying ( constitutive ) is his Grant in the new Covenant ; by which as a Morall Instrument , our Justification and Pardon are in time produced , even when we beleeve : the Obligation of the Law being then by it made void to us .

And this is the present apprehension I have of the nature of Remission and Justification : Si quid novisti rectius , &c. ( yet I shall have occasion afterwards to tell you , That all this is but Remission and Justification in Law and Title , which must be distinguished from that which is in Judgment or Sentence ; the former being vertual in respect of the Actuality of the latter )

2. The second kinde of Gods Acts , which may be called Justifying , is indeed Immanent ; viz. his knowing the sinner to be pardoned and just in Law ; his Willing and Approving hereof as True and Good : These are Acts in Heaven , yea in God himself ; but the former sort are on earth also . I would not have those Acts of God separated which he doth conjoyn ; as he ever doth these last with the former : But I verily think that it is especially the former transient legall Acts which the Scripture usually means when it speaks of Pardoning and ( constitutive ) Justifying : and not these Immanent Acts : though these must be looked on as concurrent with the former . Yet most Divines that I meet with , seem to look at Pardon and Justification as being done in heaven only and consisting only in these later Immanent Acts : And yet they deny Justification to be an Immanent Act too : But how they will ever manifest that these celestiall Acts of God , ( viz. his Willing the sinners Pardon , and so forgiving him in his own brest ; or his accepting him as just , ) are Transient Acts , I am yet unable to understand . And if they be Immanent Acts , most will grant that they are from Eternity : and then fair fall the Antinomians . Indeed if God have a Bar in Heaven before his Angels , where these things are for the present transacted , as some think ; and that we are said to be justified only at the bar now ; then I confess that is a transient Act indeed . But of that more hereafter .

7. I add in the definition , That all this is done [ in consideration of the Satisfaction , 1 made by Christ , 2. Accepted , 3. and pleaded with God . ] The satisfaction made is the proper meritorious and impulsive cause : 2. So the Satisfaction , as pleaded by Christ the intercessor , is also an impulsive cause . 3. The Satisfactious Acceptance by the Sinner ( that is Faith , ) and the pleading of it with God by the sinner ( that is praying for pardon , ) are but the Conditions , or Causae sine quo .

But all these will be fuller opened afterwards .

THESIS . XXXVII .

IVstification is either 1. in Title and the Sence of the Law ; 2. Or in Sentence of Iudgment . The first may be called Constitutive ; The second Declarative : The first Virtuall , the second Actuall .

EXPLICATION .

I Will not stand to mention all those other Distinctions of Justification which are common in others , & not so necessary or pertinent to my purposed scope . You may finde them in Mr Bradshaw , Mr Iohn Goodwin , and Alstedius Distinctions and Definitions , &c.

The difference between Justification in Title of Law , and in Sentence of Judgment , is apparent at the first view : Therefore I need not explain it . It is common , when a man hath a good cause , and the Law on his side , to say , The Law justifieth him , or he is just in Law , or he is acquit by the Law ; and yet he is more fully and compleatly acquit by the sentence of the Judge afterward . In the former sence we are now justified by faith , as soon as ever we beleeve : In the latter sence we are justified at the last Judgment . The title of [ Declarative ] is too narrow for this last : For the sentence of judiciall absolution doth more then barely to declare us justified . I call the former [ virtuall ] not as it is in it felf considered , but as it standeth in relation to the latter .

All those Scriptures , which speak of Justification as done in this life , I understand of Justification in Title opf Law : So Rom. 5. 1. Being justified by faith , we have peace with God . Rom. 4. 2. Rom. 5. 9. Being now justified by his blood , &c. Iames 2. 21 , 25. &c.

But Justification in Judgment , as it is the compleating Act , so is it most fitly called Justification ; and I think the word in Scripture hath most commonly reference to the Judgment day ; and that Justification in Title is called [ Justification ] most especially , because of its relation to the Justification at Judgment ; because as men are now in point of Law , so shall they most certainly be sentenced in Judgment .

Therefore is it spoken of many times as a future thing , and not yet done : Rom. 3. 30 Mat. 12. 37. Rom. 2. 13. But these may be called [ Justification by Faith , ] for by Faith we are justified , both in Law Title . and at Judgment .

THESIS XXXVIII .

IVstification , in Title of Law , is a gracious Act of God , by the Promise or Grant of the new Covevant , acquitting the Offender from the Accusasation and Condemnation of the old Covenant , upon consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ , and accepted by the sinner .

EXPLICATION .

HEre you may see 1. That pardon of sin , and this Iustification in Law , are not punctually and precisely alone : 2. And yet the difference 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 opposition to Accusatiō ; 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 ●●ch thing , as that to be the Bar where Faith doth most properly justifie : Yet I acknowledge that in a more remote sence we may be said to be justified by Faith at all the four other Bars , viz. Gods Immanent Judgment , and before the Angels , and before Conscience , and the World : For God and Angels do judge according to Truth , and take those to be just , who are so in Law and in deed : and so do our Consciences , and Men when they judge rightly ; and when they do not , we cannot well be said to be justified at their Bar. Therefore I think they mistake , who would have Works , rather then Faith , to justifie us at the Bar of the World , as I shall shew afterward , when I come to open the conditions of Justification .

THESIS XLI .

THat saying of our Divines [ That Iustification is perfected at first , and admits of no degrees ] must be understood thus , That each of those Acts which we call Iustification , are in their own kind perfect at once ; and that our Righteousness is perfect and admits not of degrees . But yet as the former Acts , called Iustification , do not fully , and in all respects , procure our freedom , so they may be said to be imperfect , and but degrees toward our full and perfect Iustification at the last Iudgment .

THESIS XLII .

THere are many such steps toward our finall and full Iustification ; As ▪ 1. Gods eternall Love and Decree of justifying us . 2. Christs undertaking for satisfying and justifying . 3. His actuall satisfying by paying the price . 4. His own Iustification , as the publique Person , at his Resurrection . 5. That change which is made in our Relation upon our Regeneration , or receiving the vitall seed of Grace , where , among others , that is contained , which is called the habit of Faith : these infants are capable of . 6. The change of our Relation upon our actuall Faith . 7. The pacyfying our own hearts is by the evidence of Faith , and assurance there-upon , and witness of Conscience , and Testimony , and Seale of the Spirit . 8. The Angels judging us righteous , and rejoycing therein . 9. Our Iustification before Men. 10. And our finall Iustification at the great Iudgment .

But it is only the sixth and tenth of these which is directly and properly the Iustification by Faith , as is before exprest .

THESIS XLIII .

THe Iustification which we have in Christs own Iustification is but conditionall as to the particular offenders , and none can lay claim to it , till he have performed the conditions ; nor shall any be personally justified t●ll then : Even the elect remain personally unjust and unjustified , for all their conditionall Iustification in Christ , till they do beleeve .

THis needs not explication , and for Confirmation there is enough said under the 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , Positions before .

THESIS XLIV .

MEn that are but thus conditionally pardoned and justified , may be unpardoned and unjustified again for their non-performance of the conditions , and all the debt so forgiven be required at their hands ; and all this without any change in God , or in his Laws . See Ball of the Covenant , pag. 240.

THis is all plain ; only for so much of it as seems to intimate an universall conditionall Justification , and consequently universall Redemption , I intreat the Reader to suspend his Judgment , till I come to the point of Universall Redemption , where I shall fully and purposely explain my meaning .

And for that which intimates in the following Position , the falling away of the justified , understand , that I speak only upon supposition , and of a possibility in the thing , and of the Tenor of the Gospell : But in regard of Gods Will of Purpose , which determineth eventually , whether they shall fall quite away or not , I do beleeve , that the justified by Faith never do , or shall fall away .

THESIS . XLV .

YEa , in case the justified by Faith should cease beleeving , the Scripture would pronounce them unjust again , and yet without any change in God , or Scripture , but only in themselves . Because their Iustification doth continue conditionall as long as they live here ; the Scripture doth justifie no man by name , but all beleevers as such ; therefore if they should cease to be beleevers , they would cease to be justified .

THESIS . XLVI .

IVstification implyeth Accusation , either Virtuall or Actuall .

EXPLICATION .

AS there is a Justification in Law or in Sentence , so is there the Accusation of the Law , as it stands in force , which may be called a virtuall Accusation , in reference to that at Judgment , which will be Actuall from Satans pleading the violated Law against us . Mr Bradshaw doth fully shew you the reason of this Position .

THESIS . XLVII .

THe new Covenant accuseth no man , as deserving its penalty , but only those that perform not its conditions ; that is , the finally unbelieving and impenitent rebels against Christ , and their rightfull Lord .

EXPLICATION .

THat the Gospell doth not condemn men , or threaten them with damnation for any sins but unbelief , I dare not speak or think . But that the Gospell threateneth no man with damnation but unbeleevers , is out of all question : And consequently the proper sin threatened in the new Covenant as such , is unbelief ; the rest are but left and setled on the sinner by this .

THESIS XLVIII .

WHere the Gospell-Covenant doth thus accuse , or where any one is truly thus charged , there is no Iustification for that person .

EXPLICATION .

I Mean , not where any man is accused of a temporary neglect , or delay of performing the conditions : For the Gospell threateneth not death to such , if at last they do perform them : But where there is a finall nonperformance which is the proper violation , there is no hope of Justification . See for this the 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , Positions .

THESIS XLIX .

IT being the Laws Accusation and Condemnation only , & not the Gospels , which we are justified against ; therefore the Righteousness which must be pleaded for our Iustifica●●●● directly must be a legall Righteousness , which is only Christs Satisfaction .

THESIS L.

OVr Faith therefore cannot be the least part of that Righteousness so to be pleaded , it being not the Righteousness of that Covenant which doth accuse us ; so that though we are justified by Faith , yet is it not any of the Righteousness to be pleaded against the accuser .

THESIS LI.

YEt if Satan , or any other , should falsly accuse us of not performing the conditions of the new Covenant , and so having no part in Christs Satisfaction , here we must be justified only by our Faith , or personall Gospell-Righteousness , and not by any thing that Christ hath done or suffered : For in all false accusations we must defend our innocency and plead not guilty .

EXPLICATION .

BUt because there is no danger to us from false accusation before the all-knowing God , therefore Scripture saith nothing of any such Justification , Yet at the bar of men it is frequently usefull , where false accusations may be heard ; & therefore David , Iob , &c. do plead their Innocency against their accusers . Also at the bar of our own erroneous Consciences this kind of Justification is frequently full ; for there Satan hath more hope that his false accusations may take place , then at the Bar of God : Wherefore he more usually accuseth Christians to themselves of being graceless , and unbeleevers , and impenitent , and of having no part in Christ , then of breaking the Law by their sins . And in such cases , when the accusation is false , we have no way to answer it , but by pleading not guilty , & casting back the accusation as a lying slander , and producing our Faith and Gospel-Obedience , or what ever grace we are accused to want : And so it is that our own graces and duties may be properly our comfort : It will be but a senceless shift in such an accusation to shew Christs Legall Righteousness in stead of our own Evangelicall Righteousness . To tell Satan , that Christ hath fulfilled the Law for us , when he is accusing us of not fulfilling the Gospell ; silly women are made beleeve by Antinomian Teachers , that this is a solid way of comforting : But Satan is a better Logitian then to take quid pro quo , and to be baffled with such arguing . And as silly , and more false a shift it will be , to tell him , that Christ hath beleeved , repented and fulfilled the Gospell-Conditions for us , as I have shewed before . The best is , these Teachers do but spoyle the comforts of beleevers , and not their safety ; for in the case in hand , we suppose the accusation to be false : But yet by such grounds they may very easily overthrow the safety also of unbeleevers , while they teach them how to comfort themselves without Faith , or to look at all out of themselves in Christ , and so to silence the accusation of both Covenants , by producing only the Righteousness of one .

THESIS LII .

WE must not plead for our Iustification , that Christ hath made us free from the very fact ; nor , (2) from the sinfulness of the fact ; nor , (3) from its desert of punishment ; If Christ had done any of this for us , he must verifie Contradictories . But we must plead , that the penalty is not due to our persons notwithstanding the fact , and its sinfulness and demerit , because Christ hath satisfied for all this .

EXPLICATION .

SO Mr Anthony Burgess in his book of Justif. pag , 19. affirmeth as much , though some take it for hainous doctrine . 1. That the fact should be done , and not done , is a contradiction . 2. So is it , That the fact should be sinful , and not sinful . 3. Or that it should deserve death , and not deserve it : Or that it should be a sin against that threatening Law , and yet not deserve the penalty threatened . Besides , if any of these three could have been taken off , what need Christ have dyed ? But that which Remission and Justification freeth us from , is the dueness of punishment to our persons , notwithstanding the dueness of it to the sin ; because what is due to the sin , is inflicted on the person of another already , even Christ . So that you see in what sence Christ taketh away sin and guilt , which you must observe , lest you run into the Antinomian conceit , That God seeth not sin in his justified ones . When we say therefore that God looketh on our sins as if they had never been committed , the meaning is , that , in regard to punishment , they shall have no more power to condemn us , then if they had never been committed .

THESIS LIII .

THe offending of God , and the desert and procuring of punishment , are not two distinct effects of sin , as some make them ; nor is the removal of the curse and punishment , and the obtaining of Gods favour , two distinct parts of our Iustification .

EXPLICATION .

THis is plain , because Gods displeasure against our persons ( for his dislike of the sin is never taken off ) is a chief part of our punishment , and therefore not to be distinguished from it , but as the Species from its Genus . And so when all the punishment is removed , then Gods displeasure , or the loss of his favour , must needs be removed : Therefore that Justification in this differs from Remission of sin , I cannot yet think , ( as that godly and learned Servant of Christ , whom I honour and reverence , Mr Burgess of Iustificat . pag. 259. doth , ) That Justification , besides the pardon of sin , doth connote a state that the subject is put into , viz. a state of favour , being reconciled with God . Because even Remission it self doth connote that state of favour : For if the loss of Gods favour be part of the punishment , and all the punishment be remitted , then the favour which we lost must needs be thereby restored . Indeed there is a two-fold Favour of God , 1. That which we lost in the fall ; 2. More super-added by Christ , besides the former restored : Of these in the following Position .

THESIS . LIV.

REmission , Iustification and Reconciliation do but restore the offender into the same state of freedom and favour that he fell from ; But Adoption and Marriage-Vnion with Christ do advance him far higher .

EXPLICATION .

THe three former are all concomitant consequents of one and the same Act of God by his Gospell : The freedom from obligation to punishment is called Remission : the freedom from Accusation and Condemnation is called Justification ; and the freedom from enmity and displeasure is called Reconciliation , which are all at once , & do all denote but our Restauration to our former state . Adoption and Marriage-Union do add the rest .

Some may blame me for putting Union among the relative Graces , and not rather among those that make a real physicall change upon us , as Sanctificition and Glorification . But I do herein , according to my judgment , whereof to give the full reasons here would be too large a digression . I know that Caspar Streso , and divers others , do place it in an unconceivable , unexpressable medium between these two , which yet must be called a Reall Union , more then a Relative , though not Physicall : I will not now stand on ●his 〈◊〉 knowledg a Reall Foundation of a Relative Union , and a Reall Communion following thereupon : But am very fearfull of coming so near , as to make Christ and sinners one reall Person , ( as the late elevated Sect among us do , ) lest blasphemously I should deifie man , and debase Christ to be actually a sinner . And if we are not one reall Person with Christ , then one what ? It sufficeth me to know as abovesaid , and that we are one with Christ in as strist a bond of relation as the wife with the husband , and far stricter ; and that we are his body mysticall , but not naturall . That we shall be one with him , as he is one with the Father , is true : But that [ as ] doth not extend the similitude to all respects , but to a truth in some .

THESIS . LV.

BEfore it be committed it is no sin ; and where there is no sin , the penalty is not due ; and where it is not due , it cannot properly be forgiven ; therefore sin is not forgiven before it be committed , though the grounds of certain Remission be laid before .

EXPLICATION .

FOr proof of this I refer you to Master Burgess of Iustificati . Lect. 28.

THESIS LVI .

BY what hath been said , it is apparent , That Iustification in Title may be ascribed to sever all Causes . 1. The principall efficient Cause is God . 2. The Instrumentall is the Promise or Grant off the new Covenant . 3. The Procatarctick Cause , ( ●o far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself , speaking after the manner of men , ) is fourfold . 1. And chiefly the Satisfaction of Christ . 2. The Intercession of Christ , and supplication of the sinner . 3. The necessity of the sinner . 4. The opportunity and advantage for the glorifying his Iustice and Mercy . The first of these is the Meritorious Cause ; the second the morall perswading Cause ; the third is the Objective , and the fourth is the Occasion . 2. Materiall Cause properly it hath none : If you will improperly call Christs Satisfaction the remote matter , I contend not . 3. The formall Cause is the acquitting of the sinner from Accusation and Condemnation of the Law , or the disabling the Law to accuse or condemn him . 4. The finall Cause is the Glory of God , and of the Mediator , and the deliverance of the sinner . 5. The Causa sine quâ non ; is both Christs Satisfaction , and the Faith of the justified .

EXPLICATION .

HEre it will be expected , that I answer to these Questions . 1. Why I call the Gospell the Instrumentall Cause ? 2. Why I call Christs Satisfaction the meritorious Cause , and the Causa sine quâ non ? 3. Why I make not Christs Righteousness the materiall Cause ? 4. Why I make not the Imputation of it the formall Cause ? 5. Why I make not Faith the Instrumentall Cause ? 6. Why I make it only the Causa sine quâ non ?

To the first Question : As a Lease or Deed of Gift is properly a mans Instrument in conveying the thing leased or given ; and as the Kings Pardon under his Hand and Seal is his proper Iustrument of pardoning & justifying the Malefactor , so is the new Covenant Gods Instrument in this case , or , as it were , his Mouth , by which he pronounceth a beleever justified .

To the second Question : Christs Satisfaction hath severall ways of causing our Justification . 1. That it is the Meritorious Cause , I know few but Socinians that will deny . 2 That it is besides properly a Causa sine qua non , cannot be denyed by any that consider , that it removeth those great Impediments that hindered our Justification . And what if a man should say , that because impulsive and procatarcticall Causes have properly no place with God , that therefore the greatest part of the work of Christs Satisfaction is to be the Causa sine qua non principalis ? But because my assigning no more to Christs Satisfaction but merit , and this improper causality , doth seem to some to be very injurious thereto ; I desire them so long to lay by their prejudice & passion while they consider of this one thing , That we are not in this business considering which cause hath the preheminence , in regard of physicall production , but which in morall respect deserveth the highest commendation . In point of Morality the greatest praise is seldom due to the greatest naturall strength , or to the strongest naturall causation . In Physicks the efficient hath the greatest part of the glory ; but in Morals the Meritorious Cause hath a singular share : As Diogenes said , Quare me non laudas qui dignus sum ut accipiam ? plus enim est meruisse quam dedisse beneficium . The like may be said of some Causes sine qua non : That they deserve far greater praise in morall respect , then some that have a proper causality do . It is agreed , that removens impedimentum quâ talis , is Causa sine quâ non : And doth not the greatest part of a Phisitians skill lye there ? That which taketh away the offending humor , and clenseth out the corruption , and removeth all hinderances , shall have the greatest share in the glory of the cure , of any artificiall cause . Suppose a man be condemned by Law for Treason , one payeth one thousand pound for his Pardon , and thereby procured it under the broad Seale ; hereby he suspendeth , and afterward disableth the Law , as to the offender ; This man is the efficient of those happy effects , from which the justification of the Traytor will follow : But as to his justification it self , he is but the Causa removens impedimenta , taking away the force of the Law , and the offence of Majesty , and whatsoever els did hinder the justification of the offender . And yet I think he deserveth more thanks then either the Laywer that justifieth him by Plea , or the Judge that justifies him by Sentence . So here ; If you had rather : you may call it a necessary Antecedent . Or , if any man think fitter to call these Causes by another name , I much care not , so we agree concerning the nature of the thing .

To the third question . Christs Righteousness cannot be the materiall cause , of an Act which hath no matter . If any will call Christs Righteousness the matter of our Righteousness , though yet they speak improperly , yet farre neerer the truth , then to call it the Matter of our Justification .

To the fourth Quest. That Imputation is not the Form , is undenyable . The form gives the name : especially to Actions , that have no matter . Imputation and Justification denote distinct Acts : And how then can Imputing be the Forme of Justifying . Though I mention not Imputation in the Definition , nor among the Causes here , yet it is implyed in the mention of Satisfaction , which must be made ours , or else we cannot be Justified by it . Though therefore , the Scripture do not speak of imputing Christs Righteousnesse or Satisfaction to us ; yet if by Imputing , they mean no more but , [ Bestowing it on us , so that we shall have the Justice , and other benefits of it as truely as if we had satisfied our selves , ] in this sence I acknowledge Imputation of Christs satisfactory Righteousness . But I beleeve that this Imputing , doth in order of nature , go before Justifying : And that the Righteousness so Imputed , is the proper ground whence we are denominated Legally righteous , and consequently why the Law cannot condemn us . It is a vaine thing to quarrell about the Logicall names of the Causes of Justification , if we agree in the matter .

To the fifth Question . Perhaps I shall be blamed , as singular from all men , in denying Faith to be the Instrument of our Justification : But affectation of singularity leades me not to it . 1. If Faith be an Iustrument , it is the Instrument of God or man : Not of man : For man is not the principall efficient ; he doth not justifie himself . 2. Not of God : For 1. It is not God that believeth ; though its true , he is the first Cause of all Actions . 2. Man is the Causa secunda , between God and the Action : and so still man should be said to justifie himselfe . 3. For ( as Aquinus ) The Action of the principall Cause and of the Instrument is one Action : and who dare say , that Faith is so Gods Instrument ? 4. The Instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the Principall cause by a proper Causalitie . And who dare say , that Faith hath such an influx into our Justification ?

Object . But some would evade thus : It is ( say they ) a Passive Instrument not an Active .

To which I Answer . 1 Even Passive Instruments are said to help the Action of the principall Agent , ( Keckerm . Logick pag. 131. ) He that saith , Faith doth so , in my judgement , gives too much to it . 2. It is past my capacity to conceive of a Passive Morall Instrument . 3. How can the Act of Believing ( which hath no other being , but to be an Act ) be possibly a Passive Instrument ? Doth this Act effect by suffering ? Or can wise men have a grosser conceit of this . 4. I believe with Schibler , that there is no such thing at all as a passive Instrument . The examples that some produce ( as Burgersdicius his Cultor & gladius ) belong to Active Instrument . And the Examples that others bring , ( as Keckermans Iurus instrumentum fabricationis , mensa & scamnum accubitus , terra ambulationis ) are no Instruments : except you will call every Patient or Object , the Instrument of the Agent . The Instrument is an Efficient Cause . All efficiencie is by action ; and that which doth not Act , doth not effect ▪ Indeed , as some extend the use of the word instrument , you may call , almost , any thing an Instrument , which is any way conducible to the production of the Effect under the chief Cause ; And so you may call Faith an Instrument .

Quest. But though Faith be not the Instrument of Justification ; may it not be called the Instrument of receiving Christ who Justifieth us ?

Answ. I do not so much stick at this speech as at the former : yet is it no proper or fit expression neither . For 1. The Act of Faith , ( which is it that justifieth ) is our Actuall receiving of Christ , and therefore cannot be the Instrument of Receiving . To say our Receiving is the Instrument of our Receiving , is a hard saying . 2. And the seed or habite of Faith cannot fitly be called an Instrument . For , 1. The sanctified faculty it self cannot be the souls Instrument ; it being the soul it self and not any thing really distinct from the soul : ( nor really distinct from each other , as Scotus , D'Orbellis Scaliger , &c. D. Iackson , Mr. Pemble , think : and Mr. Ball questions . ) 2. The holinesse of the Faculties is not their Instrument . For , 1. It is nothing but themselves rectified : and not a Being so distinct as may be called their Instrument . 2. Who ever called Habits , or Dispositions , the souls Instruments ? The aptitude of a Cause to produce its effect , cannot be called the Instrument of it : you may as well call a mans Life his Instrument of Acting or the sharpnesse of a knife , the knives Instrument , as to call our holiness , or habituall faith , the Instrument of receiving Christ .

To the sixth and last Question , I Answ. Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our Justification . The whole Tenour of the Gospell shews that . And a condition is but a Causa sine quâ non ; or a medium , or a necessary Antecedent . Here by the way take notice , that the same men that blame the advancing of Faith so high , as to be our true Gospell Righteousnesse . Posit . 17. 20. and to be inputed in proper sence , Posit 23. do yet , when it comes to the triall ascribe far more to Faith , then those they blame : making it Gods Instrument in justifying . 1. And so to have part of the honour of Gods own Act ; 2. And that from a reason intrinsecall to faith it self ; 3. And from a Reason that will make other Graces to be Instruments as well as Faith . For Love doth truly receive Christ also . 4. And worst of all , from a Reason that will make man to be the Causa proxima of his own Justification . For man is the Causa proxima of believing and receiving Christ , and therefore not God but man is said to beleeve . And yet these very men do send a Hue and Crie after the Tò credere , for robbing Christ of the glory of Iustification , when we make it but a poor improper Causa sine qua non . ( And yet I say as before , that in Morality , yea , and in Naturality , some Causae sine qua non , do deserve much of the honour ; but that Faith doth not so , I have shewed in the 23. Position . ) Some think that Faith may be some small low Impulsive Cause : but I will not give it so much : though if it be made a Procatarctick Objective Cause , I shall not contend .

THESIS LVII .

IT is the Act of Faith which justifieth men at age , and not the habit : yet not as it is a good work , or as it hath in it's self any excellency in it above other Graces : But 1. In the neerest sence , directly and properly as it is , [ The fulfilling of the Condition of the New Convenant : ] 2. In the remote and more improper sence , as it is [ The receiving of Christ and his satisfactory Righteousnesse . ]

EXPLICATION .

1. THat the habit of Faith doth not directly and properly justifie , appeares from the tenour of the Covenant : which is not [ He that disposed to beleeve shall be saved ] But [ he that believeth . ]

2. That Faith doth not properly justifie through any excellency that it hath above other Graces , or any more usefull property , may appear thus : 1. Then the praise would be due to Faith . 2. Then love would contend for a share , if not a priority . 3. Then Faith would justifie , though it had not been made the Condition of the Covenant .

Let those therefore take heed , that make Faith to justifie , meerely because it apprehendeth Christ : which is its naturall , effentiall property .

3. That it is Faith in a proper sence that is said to justifie , and not Christs Righteousnesse onely which it receiveth , may appear thus . 1. From the necessity of two-fold righteousness , which I have before proved , in reference to the two-fold Covenant . 2. From the plain and constant Phrase of Scripture , which saith , He that beleeveth shall be justified : and that we are justified by Faith : and that faith is imputed for righteousnesse . It had been as easie for the Holy Ghost to have said , that Christ onely is imputed , or his righteousnesse onely , or Christ onely justifieth , &c. If he had so meant . He is the most excusable in an error , that is lead into it by the constant expresse phrase of Scripture . 3. From the nature of the thing : For the effect is ascribed , to the severall Causes ( though not alike ) and in some sort to the Conditions , Especially , me-thinks they that would have Faith to be the Instrument of Iustification , should not deny that we are properly justified by Faith as by an Instrument : For it is as proper a speech to say [ our hand and our teeth feed us , ] as to say , [ our meet feedeth us . ]

4. That Faith doth most directly and properly justifie [ as its the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant ] appeareth thus . 1 The new Covenant onely doth put the stamp of Gods Authority upon it , in making it the Condition . A two-fold stamp is necessary to make it a current medium of our Justification . 1. Command . 2. Promise . Because God hath neither Commanded any other meanes , 2. Nor promised Justification to any other , therefore it is , that this is the onely condition ; and so only thus Justifieth . When I read this to be the tenour of the New Covenant [ Whosoever believeth shall be justified : ] doth it not tell me plainly why Faith Justifieth ? even because it pleaseth the Law-giver and Covenant-maker to put Faith into the Covenant , as its condition . 2. What have we else to shew at Gods barr for our Justification , but the New Covenant ? The Authority and Legality of it must bear us out . It is upon point of Law that we are condemned ; and it must be by Law , that we must be Justified . Therefore we were condemned , because the Law which we break did threaten death to our sin : If we had committed the same Act , and not under a Law that had threatned it with death , we might not have dyed . So therefore are we Justified , because the New Law doth promise Iustification to our faith . If we had performed the same Act under the first Covenant , it would not have Iustified . As the formall Reason , why sin condemneth is , because the Law hath concluded it in its threatning : so the formall Reason , why Faith justifieth , is , because the New Law of Covenant hath concluded it , in its Promise . And as where there is no Law , there is no Transgression nor Condemnation : because sin is formally a transgression of the Law , and Condemnation is but the execution of its Threatning : so where there is no fulfilling the new Law , there is no Righteousnesse nor Iustification : because Righteousnesse is formally a conformity to the Law of Righteousnesse , and Iustification is but the performing of part of its Promise .

5. That Faith 's receiving Christ and his righteousnesse , is the remote of secondary , and not the formall Reason , why it doth Iustifie , appeareth thus . 1. I would ask any dissenter this Question . Suppose that Christ had done all that he did for sinners , and they had believed in him , thereupon , without any Covenant promising Iustification to this faith : Would this faith have justified them ? By what Law ? Or whence will they plead their Iustification at the barr of God ? Well : but suppose that Christ having done what he did for us , that he should in framing the New Covenant have put in any other Condition ; and said [ whosoever loveth God shall by vertue of my satisfaction be Iustified . ] Would not this love have Iustified ? No doubt of it . I conclude then thus : The receiving of Christ , is as the silver of this coin : the Gospell-promise is as the Kings stamp which maketh it currant for justifying . If God had seen meet to have stamped any thing else , it would have passed currantly . Yet take this . Faith is , even to our own apprehension , the most apt and suitable condition that God could have chosen : ( for as far as we can reach to know ; ) There cannot be a more Rationall & apt condition of delivering a redeemed Malefactor from Torment , then that he thankfully accept the pardon , and favour of redemption , and hereafter take his Redeemer for his Lord .

So that if you ask me [ what is the formall Reason , why Faith Iustifieth ? ]

I answer . Because Christ hath made it the condition of the New Covenant , and promised Iustification upon that Condition .

But , 2. If you ask me further , Why did Christ chuse this rather then any thing else for the Condition ?

I. Answer . 1. To ask a Reason of Christs choice and commands is not alway wise or safe . 2. But here the reason is so apparent , that a posteriore , we may safely adventure to say : That this is the most self-denying , and Christ advancing work : Nothing could be more proportionable to our poverty , who have nothing to buy with , then thus freely to receive : Nothing could be more reasonable , then to acknowledge him who hath redeemed us , and to take him for our Redeemer and Lord : many more such Reasons might be given . In a word , then Faith Justifieth primarily and properly , as it is the Condition of the New Covenant , ( that is the formall reason . ) And secondarily , remotely , as it is the receiving of Christ and his righteousnesse : ( that is the aptitude of it to this use to which it hath pleased Cod to destinate it . )

I stand the more on this , because it is the foundation of that which followeth .

THESIS . LVIII .

THe ground of this is ; because Christs Righteousness doth not Iustifie us properly and formerly , because we Beleeve or receive it ; but because it is ours in Law , by Divine Donation , or Imputation .

THis is plain in it self , and in that which is said before .

THESIS LIX .

IVstification is not a momentaneous Act , begun and ended immediately upon our Believing : bnt a continued Act ; which though it be in its kind compleat from the first , yet is it still in doing , till the finall Iustification at the Iudgement day .

EXPLICATION .

THis is evident from the nature of the Act : it being as I shewed before , an Act of God by his Gospell : Now 1. God still continueth that Gospell-Covenant in force . 2. That Covenant still continueth Justifying Believers . 3. God himself doth continue to esteem them accordingly , and to Will their Absolution . 1. This sheweth you therefore with what limitation to receive the Assersion of our Divines , that Remission and Justification are , simul & semel , performed . 2. And that the Justified & pardoned may pray for the continuance of their pardon and Justification . 3. That of Christs satisfaction and our Faith are of continuall use , and not to be laid by , when we are once Justified , as if the work were done . See Dr. Downame of Iustific . of this point .

THESIS . LX.

THe bare Act of beleeving is not the onely Condition of the New Covenant : but severall other duties also are part of that Condition .

EXPLICATION .

I Desire no more of those that deny this , but that Scripture may be Iudge : and that they will put by no one Text to that end produced , till they can give some other commodious , and not forced Interpretation .

1. Then that pardon of sin and salvation are promised upon condition of Repenting , as well as beleeving , is undeniably asserted from these Scriptures . Prov. 1. 23. & 28. 13. Mar. 1. 15. & 6. 12. Luk. 13. 3 , 5. Act. 2. 38. & 3. 19. & 8. 22. & 17. 30. & 26. 20. & 5. 31. & 11. 18. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Ezek. 18. 27 , 28. & 33. 12. Hose 14. 2. Ioel 2. 14 , 15. Deut. 4. 30. & 30. 10.

2 , That praying for Pardon , and forgiving others , are Conditions of Pardon , is plain , 1 King . 8. 30 , 39. Mat. 6. 12 , 14 , 15. & 18. 35. Mar. 11. 25 , 26. Luke 6. 37. & 11. 4. 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Iam. 5. 15. Io. 14. 13 , 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 15. Act. 8. 22.

3. That Love , and sincere Obedience , and Works of Love , are also parts of the Condition , appeareth in these Scriptures , Luk. 7. 47. ( though I know in Mr Pinks Interpretation of that ) Ma. 5. 44. Lu. 6. 27. 35. 10. 11. 12. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 9. Rom. 8. 28. Ephes. 6. 24. 1 Cor. 16 , 22. Iam. 1. 12. & 2. 5. Ioh. 14. 21. Pro. 8. 17 , 21. Ioh. 16. 27. Ma. 10. 37. Luk. 13. 24. Phil. 2. 12. Rom. 2. 7. 10. 1 Corinth. 24. 9. 2 Tim. 2. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 6. 18. 19. Rev. 22. 14. Luk. 11. 28. Mat. 25. 41 , 42. Iam. 2. 2 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26.

THESIS LXI .

THerefore though the non-performance of any one of these be threatned with certain death ; yet there must be a Concurrence of them all , to make up the Conditions which have the promise of life .

EXPLICATION .

THerefore we oftner read , death threatned to those that repent not , then Life promised to them that Repent : And when you do read of Life promised of any one of these , you must understand it caeteris partibus , or in sensu composito , as it stands conjunct with the rest , and not as it is divided . Though I think that in regard of their existence , they never are divided ( For where God giveth one , he giveth all , ) yet in case they were separated , the Gospell would not so own them as its intire Conditions .

THESIS LXII .

YEt Faith may be called the onely Condition of the new Covenant ; 1. Because it is the principall Condition , and the other but the less principall : And so as a whole Country hath of its name from the chief City ; so may the Conditions of this Covenant from Faith : 2. Because all the rest are reducible to it ; either being presupposed , as necessary Antecedents or means ; or contained in it as its parts , properties , or modifications ; or else implied as its immediate product , or necessary subservient means or consequents .

EXPLICATION .

SUbservient Actions are in common speech silently implyed in the principall . If the besieged be bound by Articles to surrender a Town to the besiegers at such a time ; it need not be expressed in the Articles , that they shall withdraw their Guards , and cease resistance , and open the gates , and yeeld up this house , or that street , &c. All this is implyed clearly in the Article of surrender .

If a redeemed gally-slave be freed , upon condition that he take him for his Redeemer and Master that did deliver him ; it need not be expressed , that he shall leave the gallies , and his company , and employment there , and go with him that bought him , and do what he bids him do : All this is plainly implyed in the foresaid words , of his Conditions .

So here , the great condition of Beleeving doth include or imply all the rest .

I confess it is a work of some worth and difficulty , to shew how each other part of the Condition is reducible to Beleeving ; and in what respect they stand towards it . I dare not determine too peremptorily here , but I think they stand thus . 1. Hearing the Word , consideration , conviction , godly sorrow , repentance from dead works , are implyed as necessary means antecedents . 2. Knowledge of Christ , and Assent to the Truth of the Gospell are at least integrall parts of flat necessity , if not essentiall parts of Faith . 3. Subjection , Acceptance , Consent , cordiall covenanting , self-resigning , are the very proper essentiall , formall Acts of Faith .

4. Esteeming Christ above all in Judgement , preferring him before all in the Will , loving him above all ; I say this preferring of Christ above all in Judgement , Will , and Affection , is ( in my Judgement ( the very Differentia fidei maxime propria quae de ea essentialiter praedicatur , & sic pars ejus essentialis ; the very essentiall property of true Faith differencing it from all false Faith , and so an essentiall part of it . I know this is like to seeme strange ; but I shall give my reasons of it anon .

5. Sincerity and perseverance are the necessary Modifications of Faith : and not any thing really distinct from its Being .

6. Assiance and sincere obedience , and works of Love , are the necessary immediate , inseparable products of Faith ; as heat and light are of fire ; or rather as Reasoning is the product of Reason : or yet rather as actions most properly conjugall , are the effects of Conjugall contract . And as Faith is in some sort more excellent then Affiance & Obedience , as the cause is better then the effect : so in some sort they may be more excellent then Faith ; as the effect may be preferred before its Cause ; the Act before the habit ; as being that which is the end of the habit , for whose sake it is ; and to which it tendeth as to its perfection .

7. The praying for forgivenesse , the forgiving of others , the pleading of Christs satisfaction , are both parts of this obedience , and necessary consequents of Faith , and Acts subseruient to it for the attaining of its Ends.

8. The denying and humbling of the flesh , the serious , painfull , constant use of Gods Ordinances , Hearing , Praying , Meditating , &c. are both parts of the foresaid obedience , and also the necessary means of continuing and exercising our Faith .

9. Strength of Grace ; Assurance of Pardon and Salvation ; Perswasion of Gods favour ; setled peace of Conscience ; Ioy in this Assurance and Peace ; the understanding of Truths not fundamentall , or necessary in practice ; All these are no properties of the Condition of the Covenant ; but separable adjuncts of Faith ; tending to the Well-being of it ; but neither tending to , nor necessary , proofs of the Being of it ; which a Believer should have , but may possibly want .

I shall give you some reason of severall of these Assertions , when I have first made way by the Definition of Faith .

So then , as when you invite a man to your House , it is not necessary that you bid him come in at the doore , or bring his head , or his legs , or armes , or his clothes with him ; ( though these are necessary ) because all these are necessarily implyed : even so when we are said to be justified by Faith onely ; or when it is promised , that he that beleeveth shall be saved , all those forementioned duties , are implyed or included .

THESIS LXIII .

AS it is Gods excellent method in giving the Morall Law , first to require the acknowledgment of his soveraign authority , and to bring men to take him only for their God , ( which is therefore called the first and great Commandment , ) and then to prescribe the particular subsequent duties ; so is it the excellent method of Christ in the Gospell , first to establish with men his Office and Authority , and require an acknowledgment of them , and consent and subjection to them ; and then to prescribe to them their particular duties in subordination .

THESIS LXIV .

FAith therefore is the summary and chief of the conditions of the Gospell , and not formally and strictly the whole : But as Love is the fulfilling of the Law , so Faith is the fulfilling of the new Law ; or as taking the Lord for our only God , is the sum of the Decalogue , implying or inferring all the rest , and so is the great Commandment ; so taking Christ for our only Redeemer and Lord , is the sum of the conditions of the new Covenant , including , implying or inferring all other parts of its conditions , and so is the great Command of the Gospell .

EXPLICATION .

THe Observation in the 63 Position , is commended to you by Mr white of Dorchester in his Directions for reading Scripture , p. 307.

The full subjection to the Authority commanding , doth imply and infer subjection to the particular Commands : therefore God doth still make this the sum of the conditions of the Law , that they take him only for their God , or that they have no other Gods but him : And when he contracteth his Covenant into an Epitome , it runs thus , I will be thy God , and thou shalt be my people , Exod. 20. 3. & 23. 13. Deut. 7. 4. & 8. 19. & 13. 2 , 3 , &c. Ios. 24. 2 , 16. &c. Iudg. 2. 12 , 17 , 19. & 10. 13. 1 Sam. 8. 8. 2 Kings 5. 17. & 17. 7. Ier. 22. 9. & 7. 23. & 11. 4. & 30. 22. Ezek. 36. 28. Deut. 26. 16 , 17 , &c. And as Gods promise of taking us for his people doth imply his bestowing upon us all the priviledges and blessings of his people , and so is the sum of all the conditions of the Covenant on his part . Even so our taking the Lord for our God , and Christ for our Redeemer and Lord , doth imply our sincere obedience to him ; and is the summe of the Conditions on our part . And so as Idolatry is that violation of the law of Nature , which doth eminentér , containe all the rest in it ; So is Unbeliefe in respect of the Law of Grace . And as the formall Nature of Idolatry lyeth in disclayming God , from being God , or form being our God , or from being our alone God : Even so the formall nature of Unbeliefe lyeth in disclaiming Christ , either from being a Redeemer and Lord , or from being Our Redeemer and Lord , or from being Our onely Redeemer and Lord . This being well considered , will direct you truly and punctually , where to find the very formall being and nature of Faith ? Not in beleeving the pardon of sin , or the favour of God , or our salvation ; nor in Affiance or recumbency , ( though that be a most immediate product of it , ) Nor in Assurance , ( as Divines were wont to teach 80. yeares agoe . ) Nor in Obedience or following of Christ as a guide to Heaven , or as a Captaine , or meere Patterne and Law-giver ( as the wretched Socinians teach . ) But in the three Acts above mentioned . 1. Taking Christ for a Redeemer and Lord ; which is by Assent . 2. Taking him for our Redeemer , Saviour and Lord ; which is by consent . 3. Taking him for our onely Redeemer , Saviour and Lord ; which is the Morall sincerity of the former : And the essentiall differencing property of it : Not whereby Faith is differenced from Love or joy , &c. But whereby that faith in Christ , which is the Gospell condition , is differenced from all other Faith in Christ . So that as Corpus & Anima , & Rationale , doe speake the whole essence of man : Even so this Assent , Consent , and Preference of Christ before all others ; do speak the whole Essence of Faith .

For the common opinion , that justifying Faith , as justifying , doth consist in any one single Act , is a wretched mistake , as I shall shew you further anon .

THESIS LXV .

SCripture doth not take the word [ Faith ] as strictly as a Philosopher would doe , for any one single Act of the soul ; nor yet for various Acts of one onely Faculty : But for a compleat entire Motion of the whole Soul , to Christ its Object .

THESIS LXVI .

NEither is Christ , in respect of any one part or work of his Office alone , the Object of Iustifying Faith , as such : But Christ in his entire office considered , in this Object : viz. as he is Redeemer , Lord and Saviour .

THESIS LXVII .

MVch lesse are any Promises or benefits of Christ , the proper Object of justifying Faith , as many Divines do mistakingly conceive .

THESIS LXVIII .

NOr is Christs person considered as such , or for it self , the object of this Faith : But the person of Christ as cloathed with his Office and Authority is this Object .

EXPLICATION .

I Put all these together , as ayming at one scope : & I shall now explain them distinctly . ( To the 65. ) First , that Faith is not taken for any one single Act , I prove thus . 1. If it were but one single Act ( I mean specifically , not numerically ) then it could not ( according to the common opinion of Philosophers ) be the Act of the whole Soul : But Faith must be the Act of the whole Soul ; or else part of the Soul would receive Christ , and part would not ; and part ▪ of it would entertain him , and part not . Some think the soul is as the body , which hath a hand to receive things in the name , and for the use of the whole . But it is not so , Christ is not onely taken into the hand : But as the blood and spirits , which are received into every living part . ( Though I intend not the comparison should reach to the manner of receiving . ) Neither is the soul so divisible into parts , as the body is ; and therefore hath not severall parts for severall offices . 2. The most of our accurate studious Divines of late , doe take Faith to be seated in both faculties , Understanding and Will : But if so ; according to the common Philosophie , it cannot be any one single Act.

Neither Secondly , is it in various Acts of one single faculty : For , 1. It will ( in my judgement ) never be proved , that the soul hath faculties which are really distinct from it self , or from each other . These Faculties are but the soul it self , able to doe thus and thus from its naturall being . Vide Scaliger Exercit. 107. Sect. 3. Understanding and Willing are its immediate Acts : And perhaps those very Acts , are more diversified or distinct in their objects , then in themselves . The souls apprehension of an objects as true , we call Understanding ; in regard of its Metaphysicall Truth , it is a simple apprehension ; as we receive this Truth upon the word of another , it is Assent and Beliefe ; as this Object is considered as Good , our motion toward it , is called , Willing ; if absent , Desiring , Hoping ; if present , Complacency , Joying ; when we Will a thing as Good , any thing strongly , and apprehend its Goodnesse any thing cleerely , this we call Love , &c. But whether all these be really distinct kinds of Acts of the Soul , is very doubtfull : Much more , whether they proceed from distinct Faculties . As I am not of my Lord Brook's minde concerning the Unity of all things : So neither would I unnecessarily admit of any division : especially in so spirituall and perfect a piece as the Sould ; knowing how much of Perfection lyeth in Unity ; and remembring the Pythagorean curse of the Number Two , because it was the first that durst depart from Unity : & frustra fit per plura &c. 2. But if it were proved that the Souls Faculties are really distinct ; yet both these Faculties are capable of receiving Christ ; and Christ is an Object suited to both : and then what doubt is it whether Faith be in both ?

1. For the Will no man will question it , that it is capable of receiving Christ ; and Christ a suitable Object for it .

2. And for the Understanding , it doth as much incline to Truth , as the Will to Goodness ; and as truely receive its Object under the notion of True , as the Will doth receive its Object as Good . If you would see it proved fully , That Assent is an Essentiall part of justifying Faith , read Dr. Downame of Iustification , on that Subject : and his Appendix to the Covenant of Grace , in Answer to Mr. Pemble : Where though his Argument will not reach their intended scope , to prove that Assent is the onely proper Act of justifying Faith , yet they do conclude , that it is a reall part . And he well confuteth his opposer , though he do not well confirm that his own opinion .

3. Consider further , that Christ doth not treat of Faith , in sensu Physico sed morali & Politico , not as a Naturall Philosopher , but as a Law-giver to his Church . Now in Politicks , we doe not take the names of Actions in so narrow and strict a sense , as in Physicks and Logicke . If a Town doe agree to take or receive such a man for their Mayor ; or a Kingdome take or receive such a one as their King : The words [ Take , or Receive ] here doe not note any one single Act of soul or body alone ; but a compound , as it were , of Actions ; which yet do all take their name from the Principall , which is [ Consent . ]

To the 66. That Christ as a Saviour onely , or in respect of his Priestly Office onely , is not the Object of justifying Faith ; but that Faith doth as really and immediatly Receive him as King ; and in so doing , Justifie : this I prove thus .

1. The Gospell doth not reveale Christs Offices as separated : But as they are revealed , so they must be believed .

2. Neither doth it Offer Christ in his Priestly Office onely , as separated from his Kingly : though it may sometime presse our Acceptance of him in one respect , and sometime in another : But as he is offered , so must he be received .

3. Scripture no where tyeth Justification to the receipt of him as our Priest onely , therefore we must not doe so .

4. How commonly doth Scripture joyn his Offices together , calling him usually , Our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ ?

5. If we receive him not as King , we receive him not as an entire Saviour : For he saveth us , not onely by dying for us , but also by reducing us really into communion with God , and guiding us by his Laws , and protecting and perfecting us by his Government , and subduing our enemies .

6. His Kingly Office is a true part of his entire Office of Mediatorship : Now the sincerity of Acts in Morall respects , lyeth in their true suitableness to the nature of their Objects : As God is not truely loved , except he be loved entirely : so neither is Christ truely received , if you receive him not entirely . It is a lame , partiall Faith , and no true Faith , that taketh Christ onely in the Notion of a deliverer from guilt and punishment , without any accepting of him , as our Lord and Governour . Though I beleeve that the hope of being pardoned & saved is the first thing that moveth men to receive Christ , yet do they , being so moved , receive him as their Lord also , or else they doe not receive him sincerely .

7. The exalting of his Kingly Office , is as principall an end of his dying , & of his becomming Mediatour , as is the saving of us , and the exalting of his Priestly Office . See the second Psal. and Rom. 14. 9. To this end he both dyed , rose and revived , that he might be Lord both of the dead , and the living . And therefore the receiving of him as Priest alone , is not like to be the Condition of our Justification . So that if Christ put both into the Condition , we must not separate what he hath joyned . But the main ground of their Error , who think otherwise , is this : They think Acceptance of the mercy offered , doth make it ours immediately in a naturall way , as the accepting of a thing from men ; And so as if he that accepted pardon , should have it , and he that accepted sanctitie should have it , &c. But Christ ( as I have shewed ) establisheth his Offices and Authority , before he bestow his mercies ; and though Accepting be the proper condition , yet doth it not conferre the title to us , as it is an accepting primarily , but as it is the Covenants Condition : If we should take possession when we have no title in Law , God would quickly challenge us for our bold usurpation , and deale with us , as with him that intruded without the Wedding garment ; There is more adoe then come in : and sit down , and take what we have a mind to : God hath put all his Sons Offices into the Condition , to be received and submitted to : either all or none , must be accepted : And if All be in the Condition , then the receiving of all must needs Justifie upon the grounds that I have laid down before .

To the 67. That the promises or benefits are not the immediate proper object of Justifying Faith , is evident from the gorunds already layd down : As also from the constant language of the Gospell , which maketh Faith to lie in receiving , believing in him , and in his name , &c. still making Christ himself the immediate object . Therefore if Mr Cotton say as the Lord Brook represents him , That Faith can be nothing but a laying hold of that promise which God hath made ; ( in his Tract . of Truth and Vni . pag. 152. ) it is a foul error in so weighty a point ; as is also his other , of Faith justifying and saving only declaratively . Indeed that first less principall Act of Faith , which we call Assent , hath the truth of the Gospell revelation for its neerest and most immediate object ; but ( I think , by the leave of those who contradict ) not its onely nor chief object : The truth of the proposition is but a means to the apprehending of the truth of the thing proposed ; nor the truth of the history , but a glass to shew us the truth of the Acts which it relateth . So that even the Understanding it self doth apprehend the person and offices of Christ in their Metaphisicall Verity , by means of its apprehension of the Logicall and Morall verity of the Relation : and though the truth of the Word be the neerest object of Assent , yet the truth of Christs person , nature and offices is the more principall : Or if about these , it may not have the name of Assent , yet shall it have the same nature still .

To the 68. I think none will contradict it , and therefore there need nothing be said .

THESIS LXIX .

IVstifying Faith is the hearty accepting of Christ for our only Lord and Saviour .

EXPLICATION .

IN this brief definition , you have nothing but what is essentiall to it .

1. The genus I need not mention ; when it is the Act of Faith which I define , you know the genus already .

2. The Understandings apprehension of Christ as a true Redeemer and Saviour , which in severall respects is called Knowledg or Belief , I do imply this , and not express it ; because though I take it for a real part of Faith , yet not the most principall and formall part . And as we use to imply Corpus , and not express it when we define man to be Animal rationale ; because the form , or principall essentiall part part giveth the name : So here ( though I know Assent is not properly a materiall cause ) yet being the less principall Act , it giveth not the denomination .

3. That Christ , as Lord and Saviour is the proper object , I have proved before . His Propheticall Office whereby he is the Teacher of his Church , Jimply in both these , because it may in severall respects be reduced to these : For he teacheth by his Laws and Commandments , and his spirits teaching and governing are scarce distinguishable , and he saveth by teaching . Also his Office of Husband , and Head , are in these implyed ; they signifying more the future benefits and priviledges of a beleever , which he shall receive from Christ beleeved in , then the primary offices which he is to acknowledg in beleeving .

4. The proper formall act of justifying Faith , which is most principally essentiall to it of all other is [ accepting : ] If I must needs place it in one only , it should be this .

My Reasons are , 1. Because the Scripture maketh unbelief , and not receiving Christ , all one , Ioh. 1. 11. and beleeving and receiving Christ , all one , Ioh. 1. 12. So it proclaims this as the great work of the Gospell , to Take , Eat , Drink , &c.

2. The Gospell is the offer of Christ ( and his benefits to them that first accept himself ; ) Therefore Faith must be the accepting of the thing offered . Both these are plain in Rev. 22. 17. Whosoever will , let him take of the water of life freely : There is the free offer , upon condition of coming and taking , or accepting .

3. The will is the commanding faculty of the soul , therefore its act is the principall act , and that is accepting .

4. Christ is presented to us in the Gospell , as a Suitor , beseeching us by his Spirit and Embassadors , and wooing us to himself , and the enjoying of him , which this driveth at , is called our Marriage to him , and we his Spouse , and he our Husband : Now you know that which tyeth the knot of Marriage is Acceptance or Consent .

5. Yea the very nature of a Covenant requireth this . Consent maketh it a compleat Covenant . Therefore I said before pag. 219. That Acceptance , Consent , Heart-Covenanting , and Self-resigning , are the proper essentiall Acts of this Faith . For all these are the Wills acts to this their object , which are of flat necessity to the very tying of the Covenant or Marriage knot . Rom. 10. 10. With the heart man beleeveth unto Righteousnesse .

And here let me minde you of one usefull observation more .

The Covenanting on our part , is a principall part of the Conditions of the Covenant . Though this may seem strange , that a Covenanting and performing Conditions , should be all most all one . But that is the free nature of the Grace of the Covenant . As if you marry a poor woman that hath nothing , you will give her your self , and all you have , meerly upon Condition that she will Consent to have you : And that Consent is all the Condition on her part , for obtaining present possession ( I say , Acceptance , Consent , Covenanting , Self-resigning ; which are in a manner all one thing : ) But because the end of the marriage is the faithfull performance of Marriage duties , though meer Consent were the onely Condition of the first possession , and the continuance of her Consent is the chief Condition ▪ of continuing her possession ; yet the performance of those Marriage duties , and not going into others , is part of the Condition also of that continuance : So it is in the present case of Justification .

5. Let me here also tell you , that I take love to Christ as our Saviour and Lord , to be essentiall to this Acceptance : and so some degree of Love to be part of Justifying Faith , and not properly a fruit of it , as it is commonly taken . My reasons are ,

1. The Wills serious apprehension of a thing Good , which we call at earnest Willing it , and Accepting it , is ( in my judgement the same thing as Love , in an other name . Love is nothing but such an earnest Willing , choosing and Accepting it as it is Good .

It is generally acknowledged , that the Affections are but the Motions or Acts of the Will. And if Love be an Act of the same Will , and have the same Object with Consent , Election , Acceptance , &c. Why should it not then be the same Act ? Onely Acceptance considereth its Object as offered ; Election considereth it , as propounded with some other competitor ; Consent considereth it , as we are perswaded and invited to it : But all these are extrinsecall considerations : They all consider their Object as Good , and so doth Love .

You may object . 1. Then Desire and Hope may be essentiall to Faith .

I Answ. That Love which they imply in them is : but Desire and Hope , as such , do properly consider their object as absent , which this Justifiing Faith doth not .

2. Object . Scripture oft distinguisheth Faith and Love .

Answ. 1. Sometime Faith is taken for Historicall faith , or Faith of Miracles , and then it may be distinguised . 2. Sometime true Faith is taken in the strictest sence , and sometime larglier , as I shall shew anon . 3. But especially ; so do I distinguish of Love , as it is considered by it self , and as it is an essentiall part of this Acceptance . Love respecteth its Object meerly as Good , in it self and to the Lover . But Consent and Acceptance have severall other respects , as is expressed : And yet there may be Love in all such Acceptance ; though not properly Acceptance in all Love .

Object . 3. Then Love Justifieth as well as Faith .

I Answ. When it is thus considered in Faiths Acceptance , it is not called by the name of Love , but loseth its name , as a lesser River that falleth into a greater ; therefore it is not said that Love Justifieth ; but Faith that worketh ( even in its essentiall work of Accepting ) by Love .

Object . But Love is the greater Grace , and shall out-live Faith , and Faith should rather then be swallowed up in Love .

Answ. Love considering its object onely as Good , shall continue for ever , because the Goodness of its object shall so continue : But Acceptance , Consent , &c. have other additionall considerations in their Objects which will vanish . But which is the chiefest Grace in it self , is not the question , but which is the chiefest in the present work . Now seeing Consent , Acceptance , &c. are the chief as to Justification , that Love which is essentially in them may well lose its name here : seeing in the businesse of Justifying it is considered but as an essentiall part of the main duty .

My next-Reason is , because Christ doth propound it in the Gospel , as of the same necessity , with the same promises annexed to it , Io. 16. 27. For the Father himself loveth you , because ye have loved me , and beleeved , &c. Joh. 14. 21. He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father , and I will love him , and shew my self to him . Jam. 1. 12. & 2. 5. The Crown and Kingdom is prepared for them that love him , 1 Cor. 16. 22. If any man love not the Lord Iesus Christ , let him be Anathema Maranatha , Ephes. 6. 24. In a word , Faith is a comprehensive duty , containing divers Acts , whereof this seemeth to me to be part : Neither can I yet conceive , how there can be a cordiall Acceptance of Christ , as our only Saviour , and Love not to be an essentiall part of that Acceptance : but if a finer wit can apprehend the difference better ; yet as ( I said ) Faith being considered here in Morall and Politick respects , and not in its strict naturall quiddity , may essentially be an Affectionate Acceptance , for all that .

If any think fitter to make a wider difference between the nature of Faith and Love to Christ , I will not contend ; for the matter is not great : that both are necessary to Justification , is doubtless : and that they are concurrent in , apprehending Ch●●● : And that Love is a part of the Condition of the Covenant , is also undoubted and therefore will have some hand in the business of Justification , as I shall further clear .

6. I put in the word onely in the Definition ; because ( as is said before ) I take the preferring of Christ before all others , and taking him for our Onely Lord and Saviour , to be the essentiall difference of true Faith . There is a two-fold Verity or Sincerity in our duties requisite . 1. The verity of their naturall Being , which is called their Metaphysicall Truth . 2. The verity or sincerity of them as Duties or Graces , which is their Morall sincerity : This last consisteth in the true suiting of the Act to its Object . For example , one man pretendeth to love his wife , and doth not : There is neither Naturall nor Morall Truth . Another doth love her , but not half so well as other women : There is the Metaphysicall Truth , but not the Morall . A third loveth her as a wife above others : There is both Metaphysicall Truth and Morall .

So it is in our Love to God : To Love him as the chief Good , is to love him as he is : And he that loveth him never so much , and yet loveth any thing else , as much or more ; though his Love have a Metaphysicall Truth of Being , yet it hath no Morall sincerity at all : So that the Preferring God before all , or taking him for our Onely God , is the very point of sincerity of Love . Why , just so it is about our Faith : The taking him unfeignedly for our onely Lord and Saviour , is the very point of the sincerity of our Faith in Christ . As Adultery is the most proper violation of the Marriage Covenant , except actuall renouncing and deserting : So the taking of any other Lord or Saviour besides Christ , or conjunct with him , is the most apparent violation of the bond of our Covenant , and most contradictory to the nature and Essence of Justifying Faith : except onely the Actuall renouncing Christ , and the Covenant it self , by full Apostacy ; which is an unpardonable sin , Hebr. 6. 4 , 5 , 6. & 10. 26. Yet in subordination to Christ , we may have other Lords and Saviours , but not in competition and co-ordination . Some of his Government he exerciseth by Ministers , and some by Magistrates under him ( for I cannot consent to them that say , the Magistrate is onely the Officer of God as Creator , and not of Christ the Mediator ; because all things are delivered into his hands , and he is made head over all . ) Some also of his saving works , he performeth by instruments and means : And what they so perform under him , may be acknowledged without any derogation from him at all .

But perhaps some may think that the Scripture Phrase seemeth rather to intimate , that Faith is an Assent , and not such an Acceptance and Consent , as is before mentioned ; because it oft times requireth but this , To believe that Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God ; he that should come into the world , &c.

To which I answer , 1. This proveth onely , that this Knowledg or Assent is part of Faith : but not that it is the whole . 2. It is the use of Scripture to drive at that duty which is most unknown , neglected , or resisted ; and to speak little of others , where there was then lesse need to speak , though perhaps the duty be in it self more weighty : Therefore Christ and the Apostles did spend most of their pains to perswade the Jewes to this Assent : That the Messias should come , be their deliverer , they all knew : Even the poor woman of Samaria could tell that , Ioh. 4. 25. And so ready were they to Receive him , if they had known him , that it was the generall expectation , and desire of the people , Mal. 3. 1. But to perswade them that Jesus was the Christ , here lay the difficulty . Therefore as Dr. Ames Medull . cap. 3. § . 20. ) though sometime Assent to the Truth concerning God and Christ , Ioh. 1. 50. be taken for true Faith ; yet the speciall Election or Apprehension ( for that the meanes by Fiducia § . 13. ) is still included ; and those words do but determine and apply that Fiducia to Christ , which is presupposed to be already toward the Messiah .

And let me conclude this with one more practically usefull observation . From this definition of faith , now men may see what to enquire after in their searching of their estates . As faith , being the Gospell-condition , is the main thing to be looked for ; So here you see what that faith is . The ignorance of this deceiveth and troubleth multitudes . Some think it lieth in Assurance : Some , in a quieting their hearts in confidence on Christ : Some think , as M. Saltmarsh , That it is nothing else but a perswasion more or less of Gods love : And then when poor troubled souls do feel neither assurance , confidence , nor perswasion of that love , they conclude that they have no Faith . And how will these mistaken Teachers help them to comfort ? Why , as Mr. Saltmarsh doth : sometime to tell them , Christ hath beleeved for them ; and sometime to tell them plainly , that he can but commend them to the Lord , who is the Author and finisher of Faith : and sometime to tell them , that they should not question their faith , any more then Christ himself . Thus their first way of comfort is to tell them , they do ill to question their faith : If that would serve , all the world might have comfort , and there needs no more . If that will not do , then Christ hath beleeved for them : Yet if that will serve , there is as much comfort for one as another . But what if they say still , I cannot beleeve , ( that is , as you expound Belief : ) why , then he confesseth plainly , he is at a loss ; he can drive on the work of comforting no further ; he can do no more but pray for them . pag. 31. Is it not a wonder that this lamentable Comforter should be so valued by the troubled spirits ? I was many years my self under perplexing doubts : If I had heard such comforting words as these , they would sooner have driven me to dispair then to comfort . He that hath not so much wit as to discern so gross fallacies , may assoon be comforted by a false and impertinent argument , as by a sound one . Quest. But how would you comfort such a one , that faith he cannot beleeve ? Ans. Why , I would first make him know , that the very essentiall form of faith lieth in the Will● acceptance of an offered Christ : Then would I know of him , whether he be willing thus to have Christ both for Lord and Saviour , or not ? If he say , He is willing : I shall answer , That then he doth beleeve ; and then he is Justified : for his Willingness is his very Consent or Acceptance ( and that Consent is true Faith : Christ expecteth no more to make up the match . If the match break , it must be either , because Christ is unwilling , or because he is unwilling : not Christ ; for he is the Suitor , and Intreater , and Offerer : Not himself ; for he confesseth that he is willing . If he say , I am not willing : I should ask ; Why then do you look after it , or regard it ? Do men enquire after that , and lament the want of it , which they are not willing to have ? either temptation 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 ●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 which an Hypocrite may not perform : and inward works they cannot discern : nor yet the principles from which , nor the ends to which our works proceed and are intended . There is as much need of a divine heart-searching knowledge , to discern the sincerity of Works , as of Faith it self . So that if it be not certain , that the Text speaks of Justification before God , I scarce know what to be certain of .

Once more : 1. Was Abraham justified before men for a secret Action ! 2. Or for such a● Action as the killing of his onely Son would have been ? 3. Was not he the justifier here , who was the imputer of Righteousness ? But God was the imputer of Righteousness , vers 23. therefore God was the Justifier , So I leave that interpretation to sleep .

2. That it is the Person and not his Faith onely , which is here said to be justified by Works , is as plain in the Text almost as can be spoken , vers. 21. Abraham ( not his faith ) is said to be justified by works . Vers. 24. By Works a man is justified : If by a man were meant , a mans Faith , then it would run thus sencelessely : By Works a mans Faith is justified , and not by Faith onely , so Vers 25 ,

3. For Mr. Pembles interpretation , That by Works is meant a Working Faith .

I Answer , I dare not teach the holy Ghost to speak ; nor force the Scripture ; nor raise an exposition so far from the plain importance of the words , without apparent necessity : But here is not the least necessitie : There being not the least inconvenience , that I Know of , in affirming Justification by Works , in the fore-explained sence . Men seldom are bold with Scripture , in forcing it ; But they are first bold with Conscience inforcing it . If it were but some one Phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture , I should not doubt but it must be reduced to the rest . But when it is the very scope of a Chapter , in plain and frequent expressions , no whit dissonant from any other Scripture ; I think he that may so wrest it , as to make it unsay what it saith , may as well make him a Creed of his own let the Scripture say what it will to the contrary : what is this but with the Papist to make the Scripture a Nose of wax ? If Saint Iames speak it so oft over and over ; that Justification is by works , and not by Faith onely , I will see more cause before I deny it ; or say , he meanes a Working Faith .

If he so understand a Working Faith as that it justifieth principally as Faith , and lesse principally as working , then I should not differ from him , only I should think the Scripture Phrase is more fafe and more propert ; But he understandeth it according to that common assertion and exposition , that Fides solum justificat , non autem fides sola : Faith alone justifieth , but not that faith which is alone . The question therefore is , Whether Works do concur with Faith ( as part of the Condition ) in the very businesse of Justifying ? or whether they are onely Concomitants to that Faith which effecteth the business without their assistance ? The ground of the mistake lyeth here : They first ascribe to much to Faith ; and then because that nimium which they give to Faith is not found agreeable to Works , therefore they conclude , that we are not justified by works at all . They think that Faith is an Instrumentall efficient cause of Justification ( which that properly it is not , I have proved before : ) when if they understood that it justifieth but as a Causa sine quanon , or condition , they would easily yeeld , that Works do so too . I will not say therefore that Works do effectually produce our Justification ( For faith doth not so : Nor that they justifie as equall parts of the condition : For faith is the principall . But that they justifie as the secondary lesse-principall part of the Condition , ( not onely proving our Faith to be sound , but themselves being in the Obligation as well as Faith , and justifying in the same kind of causality or procurement as Faith , though not in equality with it ) I prove thus : 1. When it is said that we are Iustified by Works the word By , implyeth more then an Idle concomitancy : If they only stood by , while Faith doth all , it could not be said , that we are Justified by Works .

2. When the Apostle saith , By Works , and not By Faith onely , he plainly makes them concomitant in procurement , or in that kind of causality which they have : Especially , seeing he saith not , as he is commonly interpreted , not By Faith which is alone ; but not , by Faith only , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

3. Therefore he saith that Faith is dead being alone , Because it is dead as to the use and purpose of Justifying : for in it self it hath a life according to its quality still . This appears from his comparison in the former verse 16. that this is the death he speaks of . And so Works make Faith alive , as to the attainment of its end of Justification .

4. The Analysis which Piscator and Pemble give , contradicteth not this Assertion . If in stead of a Working Faith , they will but keep the Apostles own words , I shall agree to most of their Analysis . ( Though conclusious drawn from the Analysis are often weak , it is so easie for every man to feign an Analysis suited to his ends ) onely the explication of the 22. vers. they seem to fail in . For when the Apostle saith , that Faith did , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , work in and with his works , it cleary aimeth at such a working in , and with , as maketh them conjunct in the work of Justifying : And when he saith that Faith was made perfect with Works , it is not ( as they and others interpret ) only a manifesting to be perfect . But as the habit is perfected in its Acts , because they are the end to which it tendeth ; And as Marriage is perfected per congressum & procreationem : or any Covenant when its conditions are performed . Faith alone is not the entire perfect Condition of the New Covenant : but Faith with Repentance and sincere Obedience , is ; A condemned Gally-slave being Redeemed , is to have his deliverance upon condition that he take his Redeemer for his Master : This doth so directly imply , that he must obey him , that his conditions are not perfectly fulfilled , except he do obey him as his Master : And so taking him for his Redeemer and Master , and obeying him as his Master , do in the same kind procure his continued freedom . Indeed his meer promise and consent doth procure his first deliverance , but not the continuance of it . So I acknowledg , that the very first point of Justification is by Faith alone , without either the concomitancy or co-operation of Works ; for they cannot be performed in an instant : But the continuance and accomplishment of Justification is not without the joynt procurement of obedience . As a woman is made a mans wife , and instated in all that he hath , upon meer acceptance , consent , and contracts ; because conjugall actions , affection , the forsaking of others , &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 Works 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 one●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 Blessed ! inherit the Kingdom , &c. [ For ] I was hungry , &c. So 1 Pet. 1. 17. Who without respect of persons judgeth according to every mans work . So 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appear before the Iudgment seat of Christ , that every one may receive the things done in his body , according to that he hath done , whether good or bad . So Rev. 20. 12. 13. They were judged every man according to his Works . Heb. 13. 17. Phil. 4. 17. Mat. 12. 36. &c. But this is evident already .

2. As it is beyond doubt that Christ will then justifie men according to their Works : So that this is not onely to discover the sincerity of their Faith , is as evident ; but that it is also , as they are parts of that Evangelicall Righteousness which is the Condition of their Justification . 1. The very phrases of the Text import as much , Mat. 25. 21 , 23. Well done good & faithfull servant , &c. Mat. 25. 34 , 35. [ For ] I was hungry , &c. And in the rest [ According ] to their Works . Can any more be said of Faith , then that we are justified or judged to Life , both [ for ] it , and [ according to ] it ?

2. If Works be not then considered as part of the Condition ; how then ? 1. Not as the Righteousness which the Law requireth : For so shall no man living be justified in the sight of God , Rom. 3. 20. Psa. 143. 2. 2. Not as a meer sign whereby God doth discern mens faith : For he seeth it immediately and needeth no sign , 3. Not as a meer sign to satisfie the justified person himself : For 1. There is no such intimation in the Text. 2. Then it should be no further usefull then men remain doubtfull of their sincerity . 3. The godly then know the sincerity of their Faith . 4. Neither is the business of that Day , to satisfie the doubting about the sincerity of their Faith , by Arguments drawn from their former works : But to judg and justifie them , and so put them out of doubt by the Sentence , and by their Glory .

4. But the common opinion is , That it is to satisfie the condemned World of the sincerity of the Faith of the godly . But this cannot stand with the Truth : For 1. It is clearly expressed a ground or reason of the Sentence . 2. And to the Consolation & Justification of the justified : and not to the satisfaction or conviction of others onely or chiefly .

3. The poor world will have somewhat else to take up their thoughts , as the Text sheweth : to wit , the excusing of the sin for which they are condemned themselves . Mat 25. 44

4. It seemeth that Christ doth in the Text call them Righteous in reference to this personall Evangelicall Righteousness mentioned in their Justifying Sentence , vers. 46. The Righteous into life Eternall .

5. If Gods Justice engage him , not to forget their work and labour of Love , Heb. 6. 10 , 11 , 12. If the dead in Christ are blessed , because their Works follow them , Rev. 14. 13. If in every Nation , he that feareth God and worketh Righteousnes be Accepted of him , Act. 10. 35. If men shall reap the fruit of well-doing in due time , Gal. 6. 7 , 8 , 9. If Ministers save themselves in taking heed to themselves and to doctrine , 1 Tim. 4. 16. If he that doth Righteousness is righteous , 1 Ioh. 3. 7. If whatsoever good thing any man doth , the same he shall receive of the Lord , Ephes. 6. 8. If hearing and doing be building on a Rock , Mat. 7. 24. If the doers of Gods Will be the mothers , sisters and brothers of Christ , Mat. 12. 50 , &c. Then the mention of these works at judgment , is more then to signifie their sincerity to the condemned world .

6. If Christ mentioned these works to convince the world . 1. Either it must be his own Testimony of these works , that they are sincere evidences of a sincere Faith . 2. Or else by the discovery which the works doe make themselves . But 1. Christ may testifie of their faith immediately as well . 2. Works are no certain signes of Faith to any stander-by , who knoweth not whether Works themselves are sincere , or not . See more under the 76. Position .

If any say , that it is to silence the Accusacion of Satan , that these works are mentioned at judgement ; The same Answer will serve , as to the last . Besides , Scripture giveth us no intimation of any such accusation ; but onely the managing the Laws Accusation . But if he should Accuse us falsely of Hypocrisie , as he did Iob ; It must be onely Gods heart-searthing knowledg of our sincerity that can cleare us .

Yet do I not deny in all this , but that Works are effects of Faith , and to the person himself , who knoweth their sincerity , they may be some Argument of the sincerity of Faith , and God will vindicate his peoples Righteousness before all , and be admired in them . But his Justification primarily respecteth the Law , and his own Justice , and the Righteousness and Salvation of the Justified , and but remotely the beholders .

Let me conclude with two or three cautionary Quaeries concerning the inconvenience of the contrary doctrine .

1 Qu. Doth it not needlesly constrain men to wrest most plain and frequent expressions of Scripture ?

2 Qu. Doth it not uphold that dangerous pillar of the Antinomian Doctrine , that we must not work or perform our duties for Life and Salvation ; but only from Life and Salvation : That we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation an end of our Endeavours , but obey in thankfulness only , because we are saved and justified ? A doctrine which I have elsewhere confuted ; and if it were reduced to practise by all that hold it , ( as I hope it is not , ) would undoubtedly damn them : For he that seeks not , and that striveth not to enter , shall never enter . Now if good Works or sincere Obedience to Christ our Lord , be no part of the Condition of our full Justification and Salvation , Who will use them to that end ? For how it can procure Justification as a means , and not by way of Condition , I cannot conceive .

3 Qu. Whether this doctrine doth not tend to drive Obedience out of the world ? For if men do once beleeve , that it is not so much as a part of the Condition of their Justification , will it not much tend to relax their diligence ? I know meer love and thankfulness should be enough : And so it will , when all our ends are attained in our Ultimate End ; then we shall act for these ends no more : we shall have nothing to do but to love , and joy , and praise , and be thankfull ; but that it is not yet . Sure , as God hath given us the affections of Fear , and Desire , and Hope , and so Care , so he would have us use them for the attainment of our great Ends. Therefore he that taketh down but one of all our Motives to Obedience , he helps to destroy Obedience it self , seeing we have need of every Motive that God hath left us .

4 Qu. Doth it not much confirm the world in their soul-cozening Faith ? 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 si●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 with this false opinion , he will profit no more . The same is much truer in Christian Religion , and in the Knowledge 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 ●●●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 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 , wherewith they were 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 , q●asi coactus & petitâ veniâ . 2. But whether the Regenerate may break the Covenant or not , certain I am the unregenerate may and do : And whereas you object , [ That they were never in Covenant , and therefore cannot be said to break it : ] I must desire you , besides the former distinctions , to remember these two more . 1. Betwixt the Covenant as promulgate , and only offered on Gods part . 2. And the Covenant as accepted and entered by the sinner . The former is most properly called , The Law of Christ , or new Law , as containing the conditions of our salvation or damnation ; yet it is properly also and frequently in Scripture called a Covenant , ( though not in so full a sense as the latter , ) because it containeth the substance or matter of the Covenant , and expresseth Gods consent , so we deny not ours ; and also because the great prevailing part in it is Mercy and promise , and the Duty so small and light in comparison of the said Mercy , that in Reason there should be no Question of our performance : And so Mercy obscuring or prevailing against Judgment , it is more frequenly called a Covenant and Gospell then a Law ; yet a Law also most properly it is , and oft so called . Now then that the Covenant in this sense may be broken , is no question : God hath said , He that believeth shall be saved , and he that believeth not shall be damned . Doth not he that never believeth break this Law or Covenant , and incur the penalty ? So that men that never accept the Covenant , do thus break it by their refusall , and so perish .

2. You must distinguish betwixt 1. The Covenant accepted heartily and sincerely , 2. Or nor heartily and sincerely : And so I answer you , Though unregenerate men did never sincerely covenant with Christ , and so are not in Covenant with him as the Saints are , yet they do usually Covenant with him , both with their mouths , by solemn profession , acknowledging and owning him as their Lord and Saviour , and also by their externall submitting to his Worship and Ordinances , and taking the seals of the Covenant , and also in some kind they do it from their hearts , ( though not in sincerity . ) Either they do it 1. Rashly , and not Deliberately ; Or 2. They do it out of fear , as a man that is in the hands of a conquering enemy , that must yield to his will to prevent a worse inconvenience , though he accounteth it an evil which he is forced to , and had rather be free if he might , and doth covenant , but with a forced will , partly willing ( to avoid greater misery ) and partly unwilling . 3. Or else they keep secret reservations in their hearts , intending ( as a man that as aforesaid covenanteth with the conquerour , ) to break away as soon as they can , or at least to go no further in their obedience then will stand with their wordly happiness or hopes ( though these reservations be not expressed by them in their Covenant . ) 4. Or else they mistake Christ , and the nature of his Covenant , thinking he is a Master that will let them please the flesh , and enjoy the world and sin , and understand not what that Faith and Holiness is which his Covenant doth require , and so they are baptized into they know not what , and subscribe to they know not what , and give up their names to they know not who ; and then when at last they find their mistake , they repent of the bargain and break the Covenat or else never discerning their mistake , they break the Covenant while they think that they keep it ; or if they keep their own , they break Christs . All these wayes men may enter Covenant with Christ , but not sincerely ; for sincere covenanting must be 1. Upon knowledge of the nature , ends and conditions of the Covenant , though they may possibly be ignorant of severall Accidentals about the Covenant , yet not of these Essentials , if they do it sincerely . 2. They must Covenant deliberately , and not in a fit of passion , or rashly .

3. They must do it seriously , and not dissemblingly or slightly . 4. They must do it freely and heartily , and not through meer constraint and fear . 5. They must do it intirely , and with resolution to perform the Covenant which they make and not with Reservations , giving themselves to Christ by the halves , or reserving a purpose to maintain their fleshly interests . 6. And they must especially take Christ alone , and not joyn others in office with him , but renounce all happiness save what is by him , and all Government and Salvation from any which is not in direct subordination to him . Thus you see that there is a great difference betwixt covenanting sincerely , and covenanting in hypocrisie and formality ; and so betwixt Faith and Faith . Which I have opened to you the more largely , because I forgot to do it when I explained the Definition of Faith in that Aphorism , whereto you may annex it .

I conclude then , that multitudes of unregenerate men are yet in Covenant with Christ , though not as the Saints in sincere Covenanting , which I further prove to you thus : Those that are in Christ , are also in Covenant with Christ : But the unregenerate are in Christ ; therefore , &c. That they are in Christ is plain , in Ioh. 15. 2 , 6. There are branches in Christ not bearing fruit , which are cut off , and cast away . So Heb. 10. 29 , 30. They are sanctified by the blood of the Covenant , and therefore they were in covenant in some sort . I suppose it would be but lost labour to recite all those Scriptures which expresly mention wicked mens entering into Covenant with God , and God with them , and their Covenant-breaking charged on them : you cannot be ignorant of these . Wherefore you see , that it is a common sin to violate the Gospell-Covenant .

To the fifth Objection .

YOur fifth is a mere demand of my proof , That Christ is not the only person with whom God the Father entereth Covenant . Which Question I confess I am ashamed to answer : Nor can I tell what to say to you , but [ Read the Scripture ] Doth not the whole scope of it mention Gods Covenants with man ? Turn over your whole Bible , & see whether it speak more of covenanting with Christ , or with us ? Nor can I imagine what should make you question this , except it be because Mr Saltmarsh ( or some such other ) doth deny it . How could Christ be the Mediator of the Covenant , if it were to himself , and not to us , that the Covenant were made ? I know Dr Preston and other orthodox Divines do affirm , That the Covenant is made primarily with Christ , & then with us : But I confess I scarce relish that form of speech : For it seemeth to speak of one & the same Covenant ; & then I cannot understand how it can be true . For is this Covenant made with Christ ? [ Beleeve in the Lord Iesus , and thou shalt be saved : and if thou beleeve not , thou shalt be damned ? ] This is the Covenant that is made with us : and who dare say , that this is made with Christ ; Or is this Covenant made to Christ ? [ I will take the hard hearts our of their bodies , and give them he arts of flesh , &c. I will be mercifull to their transgressions , & their sins and iniquities will I remember no more ? ] Had Christ , think you , a hard heart to cure ? I know some think the latter ▪ clause belongeth to him first , and so to us ; viz. as he was a sinner by imputation , and so had our transgressions upon him : but very ignorantly : For was God mercifull to him concerning the debt ? Did he not deall with him in rigorous Justice ? & upon the terms of the first severer Covenant ? and make him pay the uttermost farthing ? Sure the Covenant , whose curse Christ did bear , did know no mercy to transgressors .

Again , the Covenant is also a Law , and Christ himself is stiled the Law-giver ; therefore can he not be under the Law , or under the Covenant : He is not King and Subject too . Moreover ( as I said before ) he is the Mediator , and therefore not he to whom the Covenant is made . Perhaps you will say , was not Moses both ? To which I answer ? : 1. Moses was but a Typicall improper Mediator . 2. Moses was in another respect a Subject to the Law whereof he himself was the Mediator ; as he was one that had a soul and body to save , or lose , upon the same terms with the rest of the people : But it was not so with our Lord Jesus ; He was only a Mediator , as being a middle Person betwixt the offended Majesty , and the offending Subjects : But Moses was one of the offending Subjects , chosen out to supply the place of a true Mediator , as his Type . So that though Moses was both Mediator , and also a Subject to that Law and Covenant ; yet it is not so with Christ . But the words , and tenor of the Covenant it self , are so plain an Argument , that I need to say no more . Yet do I acknowledge that there are severall Promises in the Scriptures made only to Christ : As That he shall see of the travell of his soul , and be satisfied : and by his knowledge justifie many , Isai. 53. 10 , 11. That the Heathen shall be given for his inheritance , and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession , &c. Psa. 2. But 1. These not be the Covenant made with us . 2. And for my part , I take it not to be any part of Gods Legislative Will , as it referreth to Christ , but only as it belongeth to us , as a prophesie , what God would do in the advancing of Christ and his Kingdom , and so of us ; and so hath partly the nature of a promise to us also . For that which is commonly called the Covenant betwixt the Father and the Son , is part of Gods purpose or decree , rather then of his Law . The Covenant betwixt the Father and Son was from Eternity : So is not the Law , or Covenant written . The Divine Nature , which undertook the Mediatorship , could not be subject to Laws , or proper Covenants ; Christ had no need of engagement from the Father by word or writing for his encouragement or confirmation . So that all the Promises to Christ in Scripture ▪ are either meer Prophesies or do also intimate some Promise to the Church ; and so are written for our sakes , and also for the spreading of the Meditators Glory ; but not for proper Covenant ends betwixt the Father and him . And this interpretation Christ himself hath taught me , Iohn 12. 28. 30. Christ prayeth to the Father to glorifie his Name viz. in the Sons Death and Resurrection ; He is answered by a voyce from Heaven , I have glorified it , and will glorifie it : Christ telleth the people that stood by , That this voyce came not because of him , but for their sakes .

I conclude therefore , That the Gospell-Covenant , properly and usually , so called , is made betwixt God and man by the means of a Mediator , and so delivered to us in the hands of a Mediator ; and may also fitly be said to be betwixt Christ and us : But not properly that it is betwixt the Father and the Son : Much less is the Son the only person covenanted with . God doth indeed give up the World to Christ ; and more especially the Elect to be saved by him : But these are not the work of a written or temporary Covenant , but of an eternall Decree .

To the sixth and seventh Objections .

THe same Answer will serve to your sixth and seventh Questions ; viz. How Faith and Repentance are both promised of God , and required of us ; Can they be his conditions and ours too ? And then whether the new Covenant be not absolute ?

I told you before that the Scripture mentioneth two sorts of Covenants , absolute and conditionall . The Absolute Covenant is found in Ezek. 11. 17 , 18. Ier. 31. 31 , 32 , 33 , 34. Ier. 32 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42. & mentioned by the Apostle in Heb. 8. 10. Concerning this Covenant you must understand , that as in the first promise of it here by the Prophets , it seemeth to be made to the particular Nation of the Jews , and is joyned with the promise of their temporall Restauration ; so some do question , whether it be yet to them fulfilled ? or whether it be not a promise of some extraordinary permanent happiness which they shall receive at their last and great deliverance by the Messias ? ( whether by coming personally to raign among them , or not , I now dispute not . ) Yet as the Apostle in Heb. 8. 8 , 9. doth extend it further then to the Jews , so must we ; but whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise , is a great doubt ; or whether he only respect the spirituallity of the benefits , and so oppose the writing of the Law in our hearts , ( which the new Covenant promiseth ) to the writing of it in stone , and revealing mercy in the dark way of Ceremonies ? But yet , for my part , I think you may call it an absolute Promise : But then understand , that this is not the new Law or Covenant made with mankind , revealing to them their duties , and the terms on which they must live or dye : This is made to the elect only ; this speaketh nothing of duty : No man can have any comfort by this Covenant , till it be performed to him , and till he have received the promised benefits ; for no man till then can tell whether it be made for him , or not : It is made to the elect only ; and no man can know himself to be elect , till he be sanctified , and when he is sanctified this promise is fulfilled ; therfore the benefits of this promise are not to be received by Faith : for Faith is part of the promised Good , as it is contained in a new & a soft heart seminally ; and therefore to receive this promise by Faith , were to believe , that we may receive grace and power to believe , then which what can be more absurd : No man therefore can say before-hand , that he shall have a new and soft heart , because God hath promised it ; for he cannot know that it is promised to him : So that I conclude , that this is most properly but a prophesie what God will do , de eventu , as it hath reference to the parties on whom it shall be fulfilled , and so is the revealed part of Gods purposing Will , and belongeth not at all to his Preceptive or Legislative Will , by which he doth govern , and will judge the world : But as it is revealed to the Church visible in generall , and so in regard of the subject is indefinite , intended only to reveall the quality and spirituall excellency of the Mercy of the New Covenant procured by Christ , that so Christ may be honoured , and men drawn to seek after , and entertain this precious Covenant , and not to stick to the old imperfect Dispensation ; In this sence it belongeth to Gods Legislative Will : And in this sence I think it is that the Apostle to the Hebrews doth recite it ; and not in the former sence , as it doth respect the particular persons that shall have it fulfilled , and so is an absolute Covenant to the unknown Elect.

But now the Covenant which is mentioned through the whole Gospel is of another kinde , He that beleeveth , shall be saved ; and he that beleeveth not , shall be damned . This is frequently and plainly expressed , and not so darkly as the former : This is made to all the world , at least , who hear the Gospel : This is the proper new Law and Covenant , by which men must be judged , to justification or condemnation . This properly succeedeth in the place of the first Covenant , which saith Do this and live : And this is it which I stil mean , when I speak of the new law or Covenant .

So that now I hope you can hence answer to both your own demands . To the 7. you see there is a Covenant absolute , and a Covenant conditional ; but the last is the proper Gospel-Covenant . To the 6. you see , that in the absolute Covenant , or Prophesie , he promiseth faith and repentance ( in promising his Spirit , and a new heart ) to the elect , who are we know not who . And in the conditional proper Covenant he requireth the same Faith and Repentance of us , if we will be justified and saved . So that they are Gods part which he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant ; and they are made our conditions in another .

Neither is there the least shew of a contradiction betwixt these : For in the absolute Covenant he doth not promise to make us Beleeve and and Repent against our wills : Much less , that He , or Christ , shall Repent and Beleeve for us ; and so free us from the duty : But that he will give us new and soft hearts , that we may do it our selves , and do it readily and willingly : which that we may do , he commandeth and perswadeth us to it in the conditionall Covenant : not bidding us do it without his help ; but directing us to the Father to draw us to the Son ; and to the Son , as without whom we can do nothing ; and to the Spirit , as the sanctifier of our hearts , and exciter of our Graces .

To the eighth Objection .

IN your eighth Question I observe severall mistakes . 1. You observe not how ill it agreeth with the two former . For if the Covenant were only absolute , then it can be made to none but wicked men : and indeed the absolute Covenant is made to none other . Sure those that God doth promise to bestow new hearts upon , and soft hearts , have yet their old and hard hearts : ( except it were meant of a further degree , and not of the first saving Grace . ) 2. And as the absolute ' so the great conditionall Promise , Beleeve and be saved is also made to ungodly men . Is not this spoken to Unbeleevers ? Will you speak it to none but those who beleeve already ? Were none of those Jews ungodly , to whom Peter saith Act. 2. 39. The Promise is made to you and to your children ? But I have proved a little before , that not only as it is a Covenant offered of God , but also as it is a Covenant entered by them , even wicked men are within the Covenant .

2. Yet you say , that [ you no where find any promise to a wicked man . ] Why then you have found but a few of the Scripture promises . I have shewed you , that the absolute promise of a new and soft heart is made to wicked men , and the great conditionall promise of the Gospell : Would you have particular examples ? In Gen. 4. 7. there is to Cain a conditionall promise of acceptance , and the donation of Superiority and Government . Gen. 9. 11 , 12. There is a Covenant betwixt God and every living Creature . Gen. 27. 39 , 40. Isaac is Gods mouth in blessing Esau : Were all the Israelites godly , to whom the Land of Canaan was promised and given ? 1 Sam. 10. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7. There the Spirit of God and other favours are promised to Saul . 1 King . 11. 31 , 32 , 33 , 38 , 39. There are promises to Ieroboam . How many score places in the Psalmes and Prophet , doe mention promises and Covenants of God to ungodly Israelites ? If I should instance in all the promises made to Ahab Nebuchadnezzar , Cyrus , Darius , &c. it would be tedious .

Object . But all these are rather Prophesies then promises . Answ. If that which expresseth the engaging of the word and Truth of God to bestow good upon a man be not a Promise , I would you would tell me what is . Object . These predictions doe onely declare what God will doe , but give no title to the mercy as a Promise doth .

Answ. Did not God give Cain a title to his Superiority and Government , and the Israelites Title to the Land of Promise ? and so the rest .

Promises doe give Title to the thing promised ; 1. Either full and absolute : 2. Or imperfect and conditionall . In the first sence we have title both by an ansolute promise , and by a Conditionall Promise , when we have performed the condition . In the latter sence it giveth title to men that have not yet performed the condition .

Object . But these things which are given to wicked men , are not good to them , but evill ; therefore it is not properly a promise . Answ. It is good in it selfe and would be to them , but for their wilfull abuse . Shall mans sinnes make Gods promises and mercies of lesse value ? God promisd that Christ should come to his owne , the Jewes , ( Isa. 53. Mal. 3. 1 , 2 , 3. ) and yet his owne received him not , Ioh. 1. 11. Shall we say therefore , that God threatned them with a Christ , rather then promised him ? He promised and gave them both Prophets and Apostles ; was it no promise or mercy , because they killed and persecuted them ?

To conclude this , the Scripture expresly contradicteth you opinion , Rom. 9. 4. To the Israelites was the Adoption and Glory and Covenants , and the service , and the Promises : And even to them for whom Paul would have been accursed : So Act. 2. 39. And Heb. 4. 1. Take heed lest a promise being made of entring into his Rest , any of you seem to come short of it . Prov 1. 23. 24. 25. Christ promiseth the foolish and the scorners , that he will poure out his Spirit to them , if they will turne at his reproofe . Amos 5. 4 , 6. Seek the Lord , and your soul shall live . Isa. 55. 6. 7. Seek the Lord while he may be found ; Call upon him while he is neer : Let the wicked forsake his way , and the unrighteous man his thoughts , and let him returne unto the Lord and he will have mercy on him ; and to our God , and he will abundantly pardon .

Are not all these promises to wicked men ?

Object . But when they returne and repent , they are not wicked .

Answ. But is not this conditionall promise made 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 , and as cautelous a proceeding as most have used ) for you know my former Judgement , and that I never administred the Sacrament , till within this year , and that I was then invited to it by an eminent wonder of providence ) I say , I advise you to beware how you deny to men the seales , till you have tried with them this way prescribed by Christ : Christ is free in entertaining , and so must wee ; Christ putteth away none , but them that put away themselves ; and then doth he call after them as long as there is hope of hearing , as one that is grieved at their destruction , and not delighted in the death of sinners , but had rather they would returne and live : And even thus must we do too . Lazinesse is the common cause of separation : when we should go with words of pitty and love , and with teares beseech sinners to return to their duty , and shew them their danger ; we neglect all this , to save us the labour and the suffering that sometime follows this duty ; wee will plead that they are no Church-Members , and so not the Brethren that we are bound to admonish , and so lazily separate from them , and say as Cain , Am I my Brothers keeper ? or as the man to Christ , who is my Neighbour ? And thus when we have made his sinne our owne by our silence , and not reproving him then we excommunicate him for it out of our society and from the Ordinances , and so judge our selves out of our own mouths . Or we separate from him for the neglect of some duty , when wee our selves have neglected both to him and others , this great and excellent duty of faithfull admonition . It is more comfortable to recover one soule then to cast off many by separation . Though I know that the avoiding communion with wilfull offendours , who by this due admonition will not be reclamed , is a most necessary & usefull duty too . But do not execute a man before he is judged ; nor judge him before you have heard him speak , & fully proved that obstinacy is added to his sinne ; ( except it be to suspend him while he is under this legall triall , ) But perhaps you will object , that we have no discipline established , & so no Authority to do thus and the means are vain which cannot attain their end . To which I answer : 1. You have divine authority : 2. And may do as much as I presse without a Presbitery , First , you may admonish privately : Secondly , before witnesse : Thirdly , you may bring your Congregation to this , that the parties offended , may accuse them openly : ( The Presbyterians deny not to the Congregation the audience and cognizance of the Fact , but onely the power of judiciall sentencing . ) And here you may admonish them before all : Fourthly , if yet they prove obstinate , you may by your Ministeriall Authority ; 1. Pronounce against him by name what the Scripture pronounceth against such sinners : particularly , that he is unfit to be a Church-Member , as openly denying obedience to the known Lawes of Christ , 2. You may charge the people from Scripture to avoid familiarity with him . 3. You may also acquaint the Magistrate with his duty , to thrust him out , if he violently intrude into Communion , or disturb the Ordinances . 4. You may forbear to deliver the Sacrament particularly to his hands . 5. You may enter and publish your dissent and dislike , if he intrude , and take it himself . All this I could most easily and beyond doubt prove your duty as you are a Christian and a Minister . And if there be any more that a Classis may do , yet do you do this in the mean time : only be sure you try all means in private ( if the fault be not in publick ) before you bring a man in publick : And be sure you do it in tendernesse and love ▪ and rather with wary then passionate reproaches : And be sure that you do it only in case of undeniable sinnes , and not in doubtfull disputable Cases : And be sure that the matter of Fact be undoubtedly proved : And that no man be suffered to traduce another publickly in a wrong way : Or if he do , that he be brought to acknowledgement . The word Excommunication comprizeth severall Acts : Those before mentioned belong to you as a Minister , and are part of your proper Preaching declarative power , which you may perform by your Nuntiative authority . The power of Classes and Synods ( I think ) doth differ onely gradually , and not specifically from that of every minister . I am ashamed that I have contrary to my first purpose , said so much of this unpleasing controversy . But when you are next at leisure privately , I shall undertake to prove all this to you from Scripture ; and that the Keyes are put by Christ into the hands of every Minister singly : and that with sobriety and wisdome you may thus name the offendours publickly , as all Scripture Ministers have been used to do . And if you question whether our ordinary Congregations are true reall Churches , where such works may be managed . I shall prove that they are , by giving you a better definition of a Church , then that which you gave me , and then trying our Churches by it : In the mean time this is not matter to intermix here .

BUt you cannot , it seems digest Mr. Blakes assertion , that the Sacraments do seal but conditionally . Answer , I have not Mr. Blakes book by me , and therefore how he explaineth himself I cannot tell ; But I remember he hath oft said so in conference with me . But let me tell you two or three things . 1. That I question whether you well understand him . 2. Or whether you be able to confute it , as thus to except against it , 3. That Mr. Blake is as truly conscientious whom he admitteth as you .

But for the Controversy , you must consider it a little more distinctly before you are like to understand it rightly . It is in vain to enquire , whether the Sacraments do seal absolutely or conditionally , till you first know well what it is that they seal . Let us first therefore resolve that Question , what they seal ? and then enquire how they seal ? You know a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation by way of Argumentation , thus : He that believeth is iustified , and shall be saved : But , I believe ; therefore I am justified and shall be saved . Now the Question is which of the parts of this Argument the Sacrament doth seal to ? Whether to the Major , the Minor , or the Conclusion ? To which I answer : 1. That it sealeth to the Truth of Gods promise ( which is the Major proposition , ) is unquestionable . But whether to this alone , is all the doubt ? 2. That it sealeth not to the truth of the Minor Proposition , ( that is , to the truth of our Believing ) I take also for to be beyond dispute , For , first it should else seal to that which is now here written : For no Scripture saith , that I do believe . 2. And then it should be used to strengthen my Faith , in that which is no object of Faith : For , [ that I do believe ] is not matter of Faith , or to be believed , but matter of internall sense , or to be known by the reflex act of the understanding . 3. Also God should else set his seal , to my part or condition of the Covenant , as well as his own , and seal to the truth of my word , as well as to the truth of his own ; for a justifying and saving us , is Gods condition , which he undertaketh to perform ; so believing or accepting Christ is our condition , which we there professe to perform . So that it is doubtlesse , that a Sacrament as it is Gods engaging sign or seal , doth not seal to the truth of my faith , or sincerity of my heart in Covenanting : It were a most grosse conceit to imagine this .

But withall you must understand , that as there is in the Sacrament reciprocall actions , Gods giving , and our receiving ; so is the Sacrament accordingly a mutuall engaging sign or seal . As it is given , it is Gods seal ; so that as in this full Covenant there is a mutuall engaging ; so there is a mutuall sealing . God saith to us , here is my Sonne who hath bought thee , take him for thy Lord and Saviour , and I will be thy reconciled God , and pardon and glorify thee : And to this he sets his seal . The sinner saith , I am willing Lord , I here take Christ for my King , and Saviour , and Husband ; and deliver up my self accordingly to him : And hereto by receiving the offered elements , he setteth his engaging sign or seal ; so that the Sacrament is the seal of the whole Covenant .

But yet you must remember , that in the present controversie , we meddle not with it as it is mans seal , but onely as it is Gods .

So then it is clear , that as it is Gods seal , it sealeth the major proposition ; and as it is ours , to the minor .

But yet here you must further distinguish betwixt sealing up the promise as true in it self , and sealing it with application as true to me . And it is the latter that the Sacrament doth , the delivery being Gods act of application , & the receiving ours ; so that the Proposition which God sealeth to , runs thus , If thou believe , I do pardon thee , and will save thee .

3. But the great Question is , Whether the Sacrament do seal to the conclusion also , That I am justified , and shall be saved ? To which I answer , No , directly and properly it doth not ; and that is evident from the arguments before laid down , whereby I proved that the Sacraments seal not to the minor .

For 1. this conclusion is now here written in Scripture .

2. And therefore is not properly the object of Faith : whereas the seals are for confirmation of Faith .

3. Otherwise every man rightly receiving the seals , must needs be certainly justified & saved .

4. And no Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man but himself , because he can be certain of no mans justification and salvation , being not certain of the sincerity of their Faith . And if he should adventure to administer it upon probabilities and charitable conjectures , then should he be guilty of prophaning the ordinance , and every time he mistaketh , he should set the seale of God to a lye : And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament , being never certaine : but that he shall thus abuse it ? I confesse ingenuously to you , that it was the ignorance of this one point which chiefly caused mee to abstaine from administring the Lords Supper so many yeeres : I did not understand , that it was neither the minor , nor conclusion , but only the major proposition of the foresaid Argument , which God thus sealeth . And I am sorry to see what advantage many of our most learned Divines have given the Papists here . As one errour drawes on many , and leadeth a man into a labyrinth of absurdities ; so our Divines being first mistaken in the nature of justifying faith thinking that it consisteth in A Beliefe of the pardon of my owne sinnes , ( which is this conclusion ) have therefore thought that this is it which the Sacrament sealeth . And when the Papists alledge , that it is no where written that such or such a man is justified we answer them that it being written That he that beleeveth is justified this is equivalent : A grosse mistake : As if the major proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion ; or as if the conclusion must , or can be meerly Credenda , a proper object of Faith , when but one of the promises is matter of faith , & the other of sence or knowledge , The truth is the major , He that believeth shall be saved is received by Faith : The minor that I do sincerely believe is known by inward sence and self-reflexion : And the conclusion therefore I shall be saved is neither properly to be believed nor felt , but known by reason , deducing it from the two former ; so that faith , sense , and reason are all necessary to the producing our assurance ,

So you see , what it is that is sealed to .

2. Now let us consider , how it sealeth ? Whether absolutely or conditionally ? And I answer , It sealeth absolutely . For the promise of God which it sealeth is not conditionally , but absolutely true .

So that the summe of all I have said is this ( which answereth the severall questions . )

1. The Sacrament sealeth not the absolute Covenant or Promise , but the conditionall Believe and live .

2. It sealeth not the truth of my Covenant , as it is Gods seal ; or it sealeth not to the truth of my faith .

3. It sealeth not to the certainty of my justification and salvation .

4. But it sealeth to Gods part of the conditionall Covenant .

5. And sealeth this conditionall promise , not conditionally , but absolutely , as of undoubted truth .

6. And not only as true in it self , but true with application to me .

So that by this time you may discern what is their meaning , who say , that the Sacraments do seal but conditionally , that is , as it sealeth to the truth of the major ( which is the promise ) so thereby it may be said to seal conditionally to the conclusion ; for the conclusion is , as it were , therein contained , upon condition or supposition of the minor proposition . He that saith . All Believers shall be saved , saith as much as that I shall be saved ; it being supposed that I am a Believer : And so you must understand our Divines in this , Yet this speech is lesse proper : For to speak properly , it doth not seal to the conclusion at all ; yet it is very usefull to help us in raising that conclusion , and to be perswaded , that we are justified , because it so confirmeth our belief of that promise , which is one of the grounds of the Conclusion .

For your inference in the last words of your objection then let all come that will ; If you mean All that will , though they come to mock or abuse the ordinance , then it will no way follow from the doctrine which I have now opened . But if you mean . Let all come that will seriously , really , or apparently , enter or renew their Covenant with Christ . I think that to be no dangerous or absurd consequence . If Christ when he offereth himself , and the thing signified , do say . Let him that is athirst , come ; and whoever will , let him take the water of life freely , Rev. 22. 17. Why may not I say so of the sign and seal , to those that seriously professe their thirst . Sure I shall speak but as Christ hath taught me , and that according to the very scope of the Gospel , and the nature of the Covenant of free grace . And I wonder that those men who cry up the nature of free grace so much , should yet so oppose this free offer of it , and the sealing the free Covenant to them that lay claim to it upon Christs invitation .

To the tenth and eleventh Objections .

YOur 10. and 11. objections you raise upon my exceptions against the book , called , The Marrow of Modern Divinity : And first you mention the Doctrine , and then the Book .

1. You think , that Do this and live is the voice of the Law of works only , and not of the Law or Covenant of Grace , and that we may not make the obtaining of life & salvation the end of duty , but must obey in meer love , and from thankfulnesse for the life we have received .

To all which I answer . 1. By way of explication ; and 2. of probation of my assertions .

1. Do this and live , in severall senses , is the language of both Law and Gospel . 1. When the Law speaketh it , the sense is this ; If thou perfectly keep the Laws that I have given thee or shall give thee , so long thou shalt continue this life in the earthly Paradise which I have given thee : But if once thou sinne , thou shalt dye .

2. When the Gospel speaketh it , the sense is thus : Though thou hast incurred the penalty of the Law by thy sinne , yet Christ hath made satisfaction : Do but accept him for Lord and Saviour , and renouncing all other , deliver up thy self unreservedly to him , and love him above all , and obey him sincerely , both in doing and suffering , and overcome & persevere herein to the end ; and thou shalt be justified from all that the Law can accuse of , and restored to the favour and blessings which thou hast lost , and to a farre greater .

Thus the Gospel saith , Do this and live . That the Gospel commandeth all this , I know you will not question ; and that this is doing , you must needs acknowledge . But all the question is , whether we may do it that we may live ? I have fully explained to you in this Treatise already in what sense our doing is required , and to what ends : viz. not to be any part of a legall Righteousnesse nor any part of satisfaction for our unrighteousnesse ; but to be our Gospel righteousnesse , or the condition of our participation in Christ , who is our legall Righteousnesse , and so of all the benefits that come with him ,

In these severall respects and senses following the Gospel commandeth us to act for life .

1. A wicked man , or unbeliever , may , and must hear the Word , pray , enquire of others , &c. that so he may obtain the first life of grace and faith . This I now prove , Isa. 55. 3. 6 , 7. Ionas 3. 8 , 9. 10. Pro. 1. 23 , 24. 25. Amos 5. 4. Act. 2. 37. Isa. 1. 16. Mat. 11. 15. & 13. 43. Luk. 16. 29. 31. Ioh. 5. 25. Act. 10. 1 , 2. 22. 23. Rom. 10. 13. 14 , 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 3 , 7. Rev. 3 , 20.

Yet do not I affirm . that God never preventeth mens endeavours ; he is sometime found of them that sought him not . Nor do I say , that God hath promised the life of Grace to the endeavours of nature ; But their duty is to seek life ; and half promises , and many encouragements God hath given them ; such as that in Joel ▪ 2. 12 , 13 , 14. who knoweth but God will , &c , So Zeph. 2. 3. Exod. 32. 30. And that in Act. 8. 7. 2. Pray therefore if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee .

2. That a man may act for the increase of this spirituall life when he hath it , methinks you should not doubt if you do see , 1 Pet. 2. 1 , 2. & 1. 22. & 2 Pet. 1. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. & 3. 18. And the Parable of the Talents Mat. 25 , 26 , 27. 28. 30.

3. That we may and must act for the life of Reconciliation , and Iustification , and Adoption , is beyond dispute : How oft doth Scripture call on men , to Repent , to Believe , to Pray , to forgive others , and to reform , that their sinnes may be forgiven them ? I have quoted the Scriptures before , when I opened the conditions of justification , Isa. 1. 16 , 17 , 18. Isa. 55. 6 , 7. Act. 8. 22. Iam. 5. 15. And we are still said to be justified by faith , which is an act of ours .

4. That we may act for to obtain assurance both of our justification and sanctification is undeniable , 2 Pet. 1. 10. 2 Cor. 13. 5. &c ,

5. That we may act for eternall life and salvation ; methinks , he that beareth the face of a Christian , should not deny : and that both for , 1. Title to it , 2. Assurance of our enjoying it : & 3. for possession it self . I shall but quote the Scriptures for brevity sake , desiring you to read them , and save me the labour of transcribing them , Rev. 22 , 14. Iohn 5. 39 , 40. Mat. 11. 12. and 7. 13. Luke 13. 24. Phil. 2. 17. Rom. 2. 7 , 10. 1 Cor. 9. 24. 2 Tim. 2. 5 , 12. 1 Tim. 6. 12 , 18 , 19. Phil. 3. 14 , Mat. 25. 1 Cor. 15. last . 2 Cor. 4. 17. and 5. 10 , 11. 2 Pet. 1. 10 , 11. Luke 11. 28. Heb. 4. 1. Luke 12. 5. 1 Cor. 9. 17. These last places shew , that the escaping hell , and damnation , is a necessary end of our actings and duties , as well as the obtaining of heaven .

If when you have read and weighed these Scriptures , you be not convinced , that we may act or do for life and salvation , ( and so that Do this and live is in some sense the language of the Gospell ) I shall question , whether you make the Scripture the Rule of your faith , or be not rather one of them that can force upon themselves a faith of one or others making .

Object , But it is not the most excellent and Gospel-like frame of spirit , to do all out of meer love to God , and from Thankfulnesse for life obtained by Christ , and given us .

Answ. 1. If it come not from love to God , it is not sincere .

2. Yet doth not the Gospell any where set our love to God , and to our own souls , in opposition ; nor teach us to love God , and not our selves : but contrarily joineth them both together , and commandeth us both , The love of our selves , and desire of our preservation , would never have been planted so deeply in our natures by the God of nature , if it had been unlawfull .

I conclude therefore , that to love God , and not our selves , and so to do all without respect to our own good , is no Gospell frame of spirit .

2. Thankfulnesse for what we have received , either in possession , title , or promise , must be a singular spur to put us on duty . But I pray you tell me , Have you received all the life and mercy you do expect ? Are you in Heaven already ? Have you all the grace that you need or desire in degree ? If not , why may you not labour for that you have not , as well as be thankfull for that you have ? Or have you as full a certainty of it hereafter , as you do desire ? If not , why may you not labour for it .

ANd to shew you the vanity , and intolerable , damnable wickednesse of this doctrine , let me put to you a few more considerations .

1. Do you think you may act for your naturall life , to preserve it , or recover and repair any decayings in it ? if not , why will you labour , and eat , and drink , and sleep ? why will you seek to the Physician when you are sick ? Do you all this in meer love , or thankfulnesse , or from obedience which hath no further end ? Or if you do , why may you not do as much for your soul , as for your body ? Is it lesse worth , or doth not God require it , or will he not give you leave ? Hath not Christ redeemed your body also ? and is it not his purchase , and charge , and work to provide for it ? And yet you know well enough , that this excuseth not you from your duty ; and why then should it excuse you from using means for your soul ?

2. Nay , hath not God put you upon farre more for your soul , then for your body ? For this life , he hath bid you be carefull for nothing ; cast all your care on him , for he careth for you ; Care not for to morrow : Why are ye carefull O ye of little faith ? Labour not for the food that perisheth : Lay not up for your selves a treasure on earth , &c. But hath he said so concerning the life of your souls in immortallity , Care not , labour not , lay not up a treasure in heaven ? Or rather hath he not commanded you the clean contrary , to care , to fear , to labour , to strive , to fight , to run , and this withall your might and strength ? And yet do you think you may not act or work for life and salvation ?

3. I pray you tell me , Do you ever use to pray or no ? Do you think it necessary or lawfull to pray ( pardon me for putting such grosse interrogatories to you ; for the main question which you raise , is farre more grosse : ) If you do pray , what do you pray for ? Is it onely for your body , or also for your soul ? And is not earnest praying for life , pardon , and salvation , some proper kind of doing ? it may be you will say , you pray onely for Gods glory , and for the Church : But hath not God as much care of his Church and his glory , as of your soul ? or may you pray for other mens souls , and not your own , when you are bound to love them but as your self ? Sure , if you may not make the obtaining of life , the end of your labour and dutie , you may not make it the end of your Prayers , which are part of your labour and dutie .

And indeed according to the opinion which I oppose , it must needs follow , that Petition is to be laid aside , and no part of prayer lawfull , but praise and thanksgiving .

4. Do you not forget to make a difference betwixt earth and Heaven ? I assure you , if you do , it will prove a foul mistake ; if you once begin to think you are in Heaven , and as you would be , and all the work is done , and you have nothing to do but return thanks , you shall ere long , I warrant you , be convinced roundly of your errour . And I pray you , what do you lesse by this opinion , then say , Soul , take thy rest , I am well , I have enough : For if you must not labour for life , and salvation , but onely in thankfulnesse obey him that hath saved you : What is this , but the work of Heaven ? Indeed there , and onely there we shall have nothing to do , but to love , and joy , and , praise , and be thankfull .

5. Methinks , if you do but consider what Heaven and Hell , reward and the punishment are , you should easily come to your self and the truth . Heaven and reward is nothing else but the enjoyment of God eternally in perfection : Hell or the punishment is most in the losse of this enjoyment , and the self-tormentings that will eternally follow the consideration thereof , and of the folly that procured it .

Now is it such a legall slavish mercenary thing for a Christian to seek after the fruition of God ? Or to be carefull that he may not be everlastingly deprived of it ? is it possible that any sober considering man can think so ?

6 , Do you not think that you may and must seek after the enjoyment of God in those beginnings and fore-tasts which are here to be expected ? May not that be the end of your duties , care , fear , labour , watchfulnesse ? May you not groan after him , and enquire , and turn the stream of your endeavours this way ? And may you not be jealous , and carefull , and watchfull , lest you should loose what of God you do enjoy ; and lest any strangenesse or displeasure should arise ? I dare not question , but that this is the very businesse which you mind , and the usuall frame of your spirit .

And is it possible , that you can think it our duty , to seek the fore-tasts , and the first fruits of Heaven , and yet think it unlawfull to labour for the full everlasting possession ? How can these hang together .

7 , Consider seriously , I pray you , to what end God implanted such affections and powers in your soul. Why did he create in you a power and propensity to intend the ultimate end in all your endeavours , to value that end , to love it ▪ desire it , study and care how to obtain it ; to fear the losse of it , and to loath all that resisteth your fruition , to seek and labour after its enjoyment ? Why is the love of our selves , and desire of our preservation so naturall ? Surely it is lawfull for you to care and desire , and labour for God in Heaven , or for nothing : And it s our duty to fear the losse of this , or to fear no evill at all : and I can hardly think that God would create such powers in the soul which should be utterly uselesse . Then let us no more cry down the abuse of our affections and powers , but the use of them ; and so turn worse then Stoicks : this is such a making God the Author of sin , as few men durst ever before be guilty of . And certainly , if the escaping of Hell and the obtaining of Heaven may not be the end and work of all these affections , then much lesse may any inferiour thing .

8. Nay , consider whether you do not make the soul and life of man to be uselesse as to the obtaining of any future happinesse : And so you take down the blessed order which God hath established in nature by Creation , and maintained in the constant course of providence ; and this you undeniably do in taking down from us the ultimate end : Take down that , and all inferiour ends are nothing , and all meanes do lose their nature , and become uselesse : and so the soul of the most gracious man shall be no fitter to attain and prosecute its end , and do no more thereto then a beast or a stone ; This consequence is undeniable .

9. Nay , consider whether you do not make all the graces of the Spirit ( except love , joy , and thankfulnesse ) to be almost vain , and the blessed supernaturall work of the spirit upon us , to be a uselesse labour ? doth not God onely create in nature , but also new create by grace in us such things as Desire , Care , Fear , Zeal , Courage , Diligence , Watchfulnesse , &c. and may we not use them ? Surely , if we may not use them for Heaven , then for nothing . And I cannot believe that God will at so dear a rate plant in us a heavenly nature , and these heavenly Graces , and then make it our sinne to use them for Heaven , and that while we are here in the way where we have such need of them .

10. But especially , I would have you throughly consider to what end God did fill his word so with Precepts , Prohibitions . Promises conditionall ▪ and Threats ? Doth not almost all the Scripture for the doctrinall part consist of these ? And are not Precepts to put us on to dutie ? And hath not every duty its end even for our selves ? And can it be any other then the obtaining of the fruition of God in Heaven ? so what end have the prohibition else ? And what are the conditionall promises for , but to stirre us up to believe and to performe the conditions , that so we may enjoy the promised good ? And why are the Threatnings but with the fear of the evill threatned to deterre us from the sinne , and to the dutie ? What think you is the reason that God doth so commonly Promise Heaven , and threaten Hell , if it be unlawfull for us to labour for Heaven , and to escape Hell ? Do you not hereby insinuate an accusation of vanity at least against God and his Lawes ? Nay , the very essence of the Covenants doth consist in all these parts conjunct : And will you also overthrow the very essentiall parts of the Law or Covenant , by making it unlawfull for us to admit their proper use ? To quote the particular places for this , would be needlesse and endlesse .

11 Methinks you should be so farre from questioning the lawfulnesse of labouring for Heaven , that you should rather think you have almost nothing else to labour for . Gods glory and your salvation , not disjunct , but conjunct , are all the businesse you have to look after : What do you live for ? Why have you all the mercies of your life ? Is it onely that you may be thankfull for life and mercie ? Or that you might also improve them to some further advantage ? I hope ( for all your question ) that you make it the greatest labour of your life to seek for assurance and obtainment of your eternall happinesse in God .

12. And once more let me intreat you to consider , whether there be any hope of that mans salvation , who shall reduce this your doctrine into his practise ? I abhorre censoriousnesse , but I desire it may be considered , because it is a matter of such unspeakable importance : For surely , if this Doctrine practised will not stand with salvation , it is time for you and all men to abhorre it : And indeed , this is it that maketh me say so much against it , because it hath a holy pretence , and is very plausible to the inconsiderate , but yet is no better then damnable if it be practised : I say , if practised , because the opinion as such is not so ; for I believe many a godly man doth erre as foully as this . But it is possible for a man by reading and argument , to be drawn to entertain some opinions in his brain , ( not onely consequently , but ) directly contrary to the practice of his heart and life , and yet himself to continue that practice : Even as a wicked man may entertain those truths into his brain in speculation , which directly to contradict his continued practice . Now it being the practice here that is of absolute necessity to salvation , and not the opinion , I doubt not but such that erre onely in this opinion , not reducing it into practice , may be saved .

But if practised , I cannot see but it will certainly damne .

For search the Scriptures impartially and consider , whether seeking Heaven be not necessarie to the obtaining of it ? And whether those that seek not , and labour not for it , be not shut out ? View over the places which I quoted you before , and then judge . Must not all that will have life , come to Christ , that they may have it ? Iohn 5. 39 , 40 , And must not they strive to enter in at the straight gate , and lay violent hands on the Kingdome of Heaven ? And lay up for themselves a treasure in heaven , and seek the Kingdome of God and his Righteousnesse in the first place , Matth. 6. 33. And presse on that we may attain the Resurrection , Philip. 3. 14. And lay up a good foundation against the time to come , doing good works , and lay hold on eternall life , 1 Timoth. 6. 12 , 18 , 19. And work out our salvation with fear and trembling , Phil. 2. 12. And do his commandments , that we may have right to the Tree of Life , and enter in by the gates into the City , Rev. 22. 14. And make friends of the unrighteous Mammon , that they may receive us into everlasting habitations ; See also Rev. 2. 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19. 23. 26 , 27 , 28 , 29. and 3. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 22. See also Mat. 18. 8 , 9. Iohn 5. 29. Act , 2. 28 , 1 Tim. 4 8. Iam. 1 , 12. 1 Pet. 3. 10. Rom. 2. 7. 1 Tim. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 4. 18. Mat. 5. 12. & 6. 1. & 19. 21. Luk. 10. 20. Phil. 1. 19. 1 Pet. 1. 9. Heb. 2. 3. 2 Tim. 2. 10. 1 Thes. 5. 8 , 9. Act. 16. 17.

Yea , we are commanded to fear him that is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell : even under that consideration to fear him , Luke 12. 5. And to fear , lest a promise being left us of entring into rest , we should come short of it , Heb. 4. 1. And what is that but to fear the losse of Heaven , or to fear Hell ? Prov. 15. 24. Mar. 3. 29 , & 16. 16. Mat. 5. 25. Rom. 11. 21 , 44. 1 Cor. 10. 12. Heb. 12. 15 , 16 , Iames 5. 9 , 12.

But I must stop ; for if I should quote all Scriptures that prove this , I should transcribe a great part of the Bible .

Consider then , if even many that seek to enter shall not be able , whether they are like to enter that never seek ? And if the righteous be scarcely saved , what shall become of them that thought it unlawfull to labour for salvation ?

13. Lastlie , how is it that you do not see , that by this Doctrine you condemne not all the Saints onelie , but even the Lord himself ? Did not Paul therefore keep under his bodie , and bring it into subjection , lest when he had preached to others , himself should be a cast-away ? 1 Cor. 9. 27. what can be plainer ? Did not Abraham obey because he looked for a Citie which had foundations ? Heb. 11. 10. And Moses , because he had respect to the recompence of Reward ? 26. And all that cloud of witnesses obey and suffer , that they might attain a better Resurrection ? 35. and did they not seek a better Countrey that is , an heavenlie ; and therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God : for he hath prepared for them a City , ver. 16. Do not all that confesse themselves strangers on earth , plainlie declare that they seek another Countrie ? ver. 13 , 14. Whosoever therefore shall hereafter tell you , that you must not do good to attain salvation or escape damnation ▪ as being too mercenarie and slavish for a Sonne of God ; abhorre his Doctrine , though he were an Angel from heaven : And if this satisfie you not , look to Jesus the Authour and Finisher of your Faith , who for the joy that was set before him , endured the Crosse , despising the shame , and is set down at the right hand of God ; Heb. 12. 12. Rom. 14 , 9. And as Adam fell to be liker the Devil when he needs would be as God : so take heed whither you are falling when you will be better then Jesus Christ .

And do I after all this need to answer the Common objections , that it is mercenarie and slavish , to labour for salvation ? Must I be put to prove that the Apostles and Christ himself were not mercenarie slaves ? or that Gods Word hath not prescribed us a slavish task ? Indeed if we did all for a reward distant from God , and for that alone , without any conjunction of Filiall love , and expected this Reward for the worth of our work , then it might be well called Mercenary and slavish . But who among us plead for such a working .

FRom all this you may gather part of the Answer to your next Question : why I except against the book called , The Marrow of Modern Divinity ? Because it is guiltie of this hainous Doctrine . Yet further let me tell you , that I much value the greatest part of that Book , and commend the industrie of the Authour , and judge him a man of godlinesse and Moderation by his writing : And had I thought as meanlie of it , as I do of Colyer , Sprigs , Hobsons , and manie such abominable Pamphlets that now fly abroad I should not have thought it worthy the taking so much notice of . But because it is otherwise usefull , I thought meet to give you warning , that you drink not in the evill with the good . And especially because the names that so applaud it , may be a probable snare to entangle you herein . And I conjecture the Authours ingenuity to be such , that he will be glad to know his own mistakes , and to correct them : Otherwise I am unfeignedly tender of depraving or carping at any mans labours . Some of these mistaking passages I will shew you briefly . As page 174. Quest. Would you not have believers to esc●ew evill and do good for fear of Hell , or for hope of Heaven ? Ans. No indeed , I would not have any beleiver doe the one or the other : for so farre as they do so , their obedience is but slavish , &c. To which end he alledgeth , Luke 1. 74. 75. But that speaks of Freedome from fear of our Enemies , such as Christ forbids in Luke 12. 5. where yet he commandeth the fearing of God : And consequently , even that fear of enemies is forbidden , as they stand in opposition to God , and not as his instrnments in subordination . Or if it be even a fear of God that is there meant ; yet it cannot be all fear of him or his displeasure : so far as we are in danger of sin or suffering , we must fear it : and so farre as our assurance is still imperfect : a jealousie of our own hearts , and a dreadfull reverence of God also are necessary . But not the Legall terrours of our former bondage , such as arise from the apprehension of sin unpardoned , and of God as being our Enemy .

In the 180 Page , he denieth the plain sence of the Text. Mat. 10. 28.

In the 155 page , he makes this the difference between the two Covenants : One saith , Do this and Live : the other saith , Live and do this , The one saith , Do this , for life , The other saith , Do this from life .

But I have proved fully , that the Gospel also saith , Do this for life .

So in his second part , page 190. His great note to know the voice of the Law by , is this , [ that when in Scripture there is any morall work commanded to be done either for the eschuing of punishment , or upon promise of any reward temporall or eternall ; or else when any promise is made with the condition of any work to be done , which is commanded in the Law ; there is to be understood the voice of the Law .

A notorious and dangerous mistake , which would make almost all the New Testament , and the very Sermons of Christ himself to be nothing but the Law of works , I have fully proved before , that morall duties as part of our sincere obedience to Christ , are part of the condition of our Salvation ; and for it to be performed . And even Faith is a morall duty . It is pitty that any Christian should no better know the Law from the Gospel : especially one that pretendeth to discover it to others .

So in the next page 191 , he intolerably abuseth the Scripture , in affirming that of 2 Thes. 2. 12. 10. to be the voice of the Law , and so making Paul a Legall Preacher .

And as shamefully doth he abuse 1 Cor. 6. 9 , 10. , As if the Apostle when he biddeth them , not to be decived , were deceiving them himself in telling them , that no unrighteous person , fornicators adulterers , &c. shall inherit the Kingdom of God . Is this Law ? Then let me be a Preacher of the Law . If Paul be a Legalist , I will be one too . But these men know not , that the Apostle speaketh of those that die such ; and that these sinnes exclude men the Kingdom , as they are Rebellion against Christ their Lord , and so a violation of the New Covenant .

So in part first page 189. He mentioneth a Preacher , that said , he durst not exhort nor perswade sinners to believe their sinnes were pardoned , before he saw their lives reformed , for fear they should take more liberty to sin . And he censureth that Preacher to be ignorant in the Mystery of faith . I confesse I am such an ignorant Preacher my self ; and therefore shall desire this knowing man to resolve me in a few doubts . 1. Where he learned , or how he can prove , that Justifying Faith is a believing that our sinnes are pardoned ? when Scripture so often telleth us , that we are justified by Faith : and sure the Object must go before the Act ; and therefore that which followeth the Act is not the Object ,

If we must believe that we are pardoned , that so we may be pardoned ; then we must 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 i● 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 participation of that , and whereby we must escape the condemnation of the Gospell , which is Faith , as I have opened before .

5. If the Apostle should meane otherwise , it were as much against your Doctrine as mine . For is not Faith a work or act of ours ? But you will say , That though Faith which is a work do justifie , yet not as a work , but as an instrument . I answer .

1. To be an actuall apprehension of Christ ( which you call its instrumentality ) is to bee a work ; Therefore , if it justifie as it is such an apprehension , it justifieth as a work .

2. So also say I , that subjection and obedience justifie , 1. Not as works simply considered ; 2. Nor as legall works ; 3. Nor as meritorious works ; 4. Nor as Good works which God is pleased with ; 5. But as the conditions to which the free Law-giver hath promised justification and life .

Nay , your Doctrine ascribeth farre more of the work to man then mine ; for you make justification an effect of your own Faith , and your Faith the instrumentall cause of it , and so make your selfe your owne justifier . And you say your Faith justifieth , as it apprehendeth Christ , which is the most intrinsecall ; essentiall consideration of Faith , and so Faith hath much of the honour . But while I affirm that it justifieth onely as a condition , which is an extrinsecall consideration , and aliene from its essence or nature , I give the glory to him that freely giveth me life , and that made so sweet a condition to his Covenant , and that enableth me to performe the said condition .

And thus I have according to my measure of understanding answered your Objections , as fully as necessitated brevity would permit .

And for that question which you propounded about Relaxation , Abrogation , &c. of the Law , which you confesse you doe not well understand ; I refer you to Vossius Defens . Grotii de Satisf . cap. 27. where ( among other things ) hee telleth you that Apud Romanos seu ferenda esset Lex , populus rogabatur an ferrivellet ? seu tollendae , rogabatur , an tolli eam placeret ? Hinc rogari lex dicebatur , quae ferrebatur , ut dicit Vlp. Tit. 1. Regal . Eâdemque de causâ abrogari dicebatur , cum antiquaretur , &c. And then he explaineth all those phrases to you out of Vlpian . Lex rogatur , id est , fertur ; vel abrogatur , idest , prior lex tollitur ; vel Derogatur , id est , pars primae tollitur : aut subrogatur , id est adjicitur aliquid primae legi : aut Obrogatur , id est , mutatur aliquid ex primâlege . And so concludeth , that the first Law was not abrogated , but relaxed , dispensed with , and obrogate .

How farre it was executed , I have shewed you in the Treatise .

But the last task you set me , is of all the rest most ungratefull , endlesse , and ( in my judgement ) unnecessary , viz. [ To answer what other men have written against some doctrines which I have here asserted . ]

1. It is a work ungratefull to search into other mens weaknesse and mistakes ; to handle the truth in a way of contention or to speak in way of derogation of the labours of the learned and godly .

2. And should I fall upon a confutation of every man that hath written contrary to any thing in my Book , the task would be endlesse , and I might stuffe a great deale of paper with words against words , and perhaps adde little matter to what is already written ; which is a work unfit me for to undertake who have so much better work to doe , and am like to have so short a time to doe it in .

3. And it seemes to me a needlesse task ; partly because from the cleering and confirmation of the positive truth , you may be enabled to answer opposers your selfe .

2. The Authors which you mention doe so easily and effectually assault the doctrines mentioned , that I should think no judicious man can thereby be staggered .

But at your request I will briefly consider them particularly .

The Authors which you refer me to , are two , D. Maccovius , and Mr. Owen . The points which they contradict are three .

1. That our legall Righteousnesse which we have in Christ , consisteth not formally in obedience to the Precept of the first Covenant , but onely in satisfaction for our Disobedience . This Maccovius opposeth in Colleg. Theol. par 1 Disp. 10. & par. 4. Disp. 9.

2. [ That Christ payed not the same debt which was in the first obligation , but the value ; and so the Law was not properly and fully executed , but relaxed . ] This , you say , Mr. Owen confuteth in Grotius , in his late Treatise of Vniversall Redemption , lib. 3 cap. 7. p. 140.

3. [ That no man is actually and absolutely justified ( no not so much as in point of Right ) either from eternity , or upon the meere payment of the bebt by Christ , till themselves doe beleeve . ] This , you say , is confuted by both of them , Maccov . par. 3. Disp. 16. & par. 1. Disp. 17. Et owen ubi supra .

If mens names did not more take with you then their Arguments , you might have spared me this labour . But briefly to the first of these I answer .

1. Most passages in Maccovius doe affirm but that Christ obeyed for us , as well as suffered for us ; and who denyeth that ?

2. Of those passages which yet goe further , there is few of them that say any more then this , that Christs active Righteousnesse did merit for us that life and glory which is given by the New Covenant , more then we lost by breaking the Old : But this is nothing to our Question which is onely about justification . For I have cleared to you before , that Justification is ( properly and strictly taken ) one of those acts whereby we are recovered from the condemnation of the Law , and set in statu quo prius ; and not one of those acts which give us that additionall glory which is Adoption , Union , Glorification .

3. Those few Arguments which yet doe drive higher then this , are so fully answered already by Mr. Gataker against Lucius , Gomarrus , , &c. and Mr. Goodwin ( notwithstanding Mr. Roboroughs Answer ) and divers others , that I am resolved not to lose so much time and labour , as to doe that which is better done already , then can be expected from me .

4. Onely one argument more then usuall I finde in part 1 Disput. 10. And which I confesse deserveth a speciall consideration , And that is this . [ If Christ onely suffered for us , then the righteousnesse of Adam , had hee continued in innocency , would have been more excellent then the righteousnesse of Christ : For the law requireth obedience principally and suffering but per accidens . But the consequence is false , because else Christ hath not set us in as good a state as we fell from . ]

To this I answer . 1. This righteousnesse may be termed excellent in severall respects . 1 In reference to its Rule : 2. Or in reference to its Ends. The 1. denominateth it Good in it self : The second denominateth it good to us . Now the Rules to measure it by , are two : 1. The neerest inferiour Rule ; which is the Law : 2. The remote superiour Rule ; which is the good pleasure and will of the Law-maker .

2. The ends which may denominate our righteousnesse more excellent , are : 1 The glory of Gods justice and mercy : 2. The glory of the Mediatours love , and the setting up of his kingdom : 3 And the good of the creature : Or rather all these in one .

Now these things thus standing , I answer thus . 1 I acknowledge that the Law made for mankinde doth primarily require obedience , and but secondarily suffering , and upon supposition of disobedience .

2. But you must distinguish betwixt what the law requireth of us , and what of the Mediatour : the law to the creature , and the law to the Mediatour , are in severall things different : The will of his Father which he came to doe , consisted in many things which were never required of us : such are all the works proper to the office of Mediatourship . Now though the Law required of us meer creatures primarily Obedience active ; Yet that which was principally imposed upon the Mediatour and undertaken by him , was to satisfie for our disobedience : And so the principall part of his works was passive obedience , and that in him was as excellent or more then Active obedience ; though in us it would not have been so ; because the law did not require it of us in the first place , as it did of Christ .

3. If you call that most excellent which is best pleasing to God the Law-maker ; then certainly the satisfaction of Christ did please him better , then Adams perseverance in innocencie would have done . This needeth no proof but the consideration of the event .

4. And for the ends of righteousnesse , let us consider them distinctly ; and see whether Christs satisfaction do not attain them all more eminently and fully then Adams perseverance would have done .

1. The glory of Gods justice would not have been manifested so , if Adam had stood , as it was by Christs sufferings : 2 Nor the glory of his mercy and free grace . 3 Nor the Mediatours love : 4 Nor would the Kingdom of the Mediatour have been set up , nor his honour so advanced . 5. Nor the saints advanced to so high a dignity and happinesse , as now they are and shall be by Christ .

So that in what respect is our righteousnesse lesse excellent ? or who is the looser ? Not the Father ; Not the Mediatour : All the question is of our selves : But that is onely in point of our honour : It is acknowledged , that to the creature it would have been more honourable to have kept his innocency , then to have his disobedience satisfied for by another . But here consider these things , 1 Gods honour is to be preferred to ours . 2 And the Mediatours advancement before our advancement . 3 It was the very design of God in the Gospell way of our salvation to take down our honour , that the creature might not glory in it self , but all might be acknowledged to free grace : And shall we think it a wrong , if we have not a righteousnesse as honourable to our selves as that which we lost ? 4 Our happinesse will be greater though our honour will be lesse : For we shall have a far greater glory . And that is better then meer honour . 5 Yea we shall have more honour then we lost : A reall honour of being the sons of God , and members of Christ , and heirs of glory : And this is greater then the honour of our perseverance would have been . Onely this being all freely given redoundeth to the giver : but still the reall honour and happinesse we enjoy therefore is it the everlasting work of Saints , to praise the Lamb who hath redeemed them out of a●l nations , and made them Kings and Priests to God ; which implyeth an acknowledgement of their former disobedience and misery , ( and so taking dishonour to themselves ) and yet the greater glory to Christ , and happinesse to them .

6. Moreover we have now besides the righteousnesse of Christs satisfaction a personall evangelicall righteousnesse , consisting in the fulfilling of the conditions of the law of grace .

So that our little losse of the honour of self-performance you see is in these 6. respects abundantly recompensed .

So that to our selves a righteousnesse of tisfaction , is better then a righteousnes of personall obedience . And as it is found in Christ , it is also in it self more excellent .

Yet further ; that it is not derogatory to Christ , doth thus appear . 1 He had in himself both sorts of righteousnesse ; viz. Of obedience to the Precept , and of satisfaction to the threatning . Though both could not be ours , retaining their forms as such : because the ( law requireth but one sort of righteousnes of one person for himself : so that we derogate nothing from Christs righteousnesse or perfection .

2. Both these sorts in Christ , viz. his active and passive ( as I conceive ) doe concurre to make up that one sort of righteousnesse necessary for us , viz. Or satisfaction to the threatning : and so both conjunct are our righteousnesse , though not as two sorts of righteousnesse , but as one . Yet I know that this is somewhat dark and doubtfull , because Obedience is a thing commanded and not threatened : But yet seeing Christ payed not the Idem , but the Tantundem ; not the very same debt mentioned in the threatning , but the value . I think therefore that his obedience as such may goe in to his satisfaction .

3. I also freely acknowledge , that the additionall happinesse which we have by Christ , more then we lost in Adam , contained in our Adoption , Union with Christ and Glorificacation , are procured by Christs active obedience as such , as well as by his satisfaction in suffering .

If yet besides all this , any will maintain that we fulfilled the precepts of the law in Christ ; or that his fulfilling of them as such , is our righteousnesse , let them shew me solidly what neede we have of Christs sufferings , and let them answer what is said to the contrary by the formentioned Authors ; and I shall quickly yeeld .

To conclude , that God accepteth this righteousnesse of satisfaction as being equivalent to that of obedience ( though obedience be first in the law , and the precept the principall part ) and so that he is as well pleased with us as if we had obeyed : may appear from the end & nature of satisfactory punishment . For the penalty of a perfect just law is supposed to be such , that it will make a perfect compensation or satisfaction for all the wrong we have done , to the law-maker or the publique : so that being paid or suffered , we must needs in point of innocency be in statu quo prius . I know some object thus , If a theef be burnt in the hand and so the law satisfied , yet he hath lost his credit , and will not be taken or trusted for an honest man .

Answ. You must distinguish 1. betwixt his breach of mans law , and his breach of Gods law .

2. Betwixt his actuall fault , and his habituall pravity . And then you will see , that his burning in the hand was for the breach of mans law ; but the perpetuall infamy is a part of the penalty inflicted by God for the breach of his law , by the same fact . 2 That his suffering was onely for his actuall fault : But our distrust and contempt of him is also for the pravity of his heart by that fact discovered , of which mans Law taketh not notice .

But if you instance in the breach of a meer penall law ( as for keeping Artillery , for forbearing to eat flesh in Lent , &c. ) You will see that the meer suffering or paiment , doth put the offendour in as good a condition as he was before .

But the Disputant in Maccovius thinketh to strike all dead , with this case . In 1 Sam. 11. 7. the penalty for them that would not go out with Saul to battell , was , that their oxen should be hewed in pieces ; yet ( saith he ) they should besides this have lost their part in the prey or spoils . To which I answer .

1. Then the losse of the spoil was implyed as part of the penalty . 2 He all along runneth upon a false supposition ; viz , That Adam besides the continuance of the happinesse which at first was freely given him , should moreover by his obedience have merited or procured some further reward : Now ( saith he ) this reward must be procured us by Christs active righteousnesse , though his satisfaction put us into the state we fell from .

But all this is a meer fiction . For where doth the scripture talk of Adams meriting any more , or where doth it promise him any more then the continuance of that happinesse which he then had ?

So I have done with the first Question .

Your 2. is [ whether Christ paid the same debt which was in the first obligation ? ] And here you send me to Mr. Owen .

Answ. 1. I had farre rather you had objected your self . For I cannot well understand Mr. Owens minde . in pag. 137. He distinguisheth betwixt paying the very thing that is in the obligation ; and paying of so much in another kinde . Now this is not our question , nor any thing to it ; for we affirm that Christs suffering was of the same kinde of punishment , ( at least in the main ; ) but yet not the very same in the obligation .

In pag. 140. He states the question far otherwise , ( and yet supposeth it the same ) viz , whether Christ paid the Idem , or the Tantundem ? which he interpreteth thus ; that which is not the same , nor equivalent to it , but onely in the graous acceptance of the Creditour . Now what he means by not equivalent I cannot tell .

1. If he mean not of equall value , then he fighteth with a shadow ; he wrongeth Grotius , ( for ought I can finde in him ( who teacheth no such doctrine : How-ever , I do not so use to English solutio Tantidem . But if he mean that it is not equivalent in procuring its ends , ipso facto , delivering the debtour , without the intervention of a new confession or contract of the creditor , ( as solutio ejusdem doth , ) then I confesse Grotius is against him ; and so am I.

So also [ God 's Gracious acceptance ] is either his accepting lesse in value then was due , and so remitting the rest without payment : ( this I plead not for , ) or els it is his accepting of a refuseable payment , which though equall in value yet he may chuse to accept according to the tenour of the Obligation . This is gracious acceptance , which Grotius maintaineth ? and so doe I ; and so distinguish betwixt solutio & satisfactio , payment : and satisfaction .

Yet here Mr. Owen entereth the lists with Grotius ; And.

1. He overlooketh his greatest Arguments .

2. He slightly answereth onely two .

And 3. when he hath done , he saith as Grotius doth , and yeeldeth the whole cause .

These three things I will make appeare in order .

1. The chiefe Argument of Grotius and Vossius is drawne from the tenor of the Obligation , and from the event : The Obligation chargeth punishment on the offendor himselfe . It saith In the day thou eatest , thou shalt dye . And Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things , &c. Now if the same in the Obligation be paid then the Law is executed , and not relaxed ; and then every sinner must dye himself , for that is the Idem , and very thing threatned : So that here , Dum alius solvit , simul aliud solvitur . The Law threatned not Christ , but us . ( Besides , that Christ suffered not the losse of Gods love , nor his image and graces , nor eternity of torment , of which I have spoke in the Treatise . ) What saith Mr. Owen to any of this ?

2. The two Arguments he dealeth with , are these .

1. The payment of the very debt , doth ipso facto , free the debtor To which he answereth , that Christs death doct actually or ipso facto , free us . This Answer I shall consider under your last question whereto it belongeth .

To the second Argument that the payment of the same thing in the Obligation , leaveth no roome for pardon he answereth thus :

1. Gods pardoning comprizeth the whole dispensation of Grace in Christ : As 1. The laying of our sinne on Christ . 2. The imputation of his Righteousnesse to us ; which is no lesse of grace and mercy : However , God pardoneth all to us , but nothing to Christ : So that the freedome of pardon hath its foundation .

1. In Gods will freely appointing this satisfaction of Christ .

2. In a gracious acceptation of that decreed satisfaction in our stead .

3. In a free application of the death of Christ to us , &c. so farre Mr. Owen .

To which I answer : 1. Pardon implieth Christs death as a cause ; but I would he had shewed the Scripture , that maketh pardon so large a thing , as to comprize the whole dispensation of Grace ; or that maketh Christs death to be part of it , or comprized in it .

2. If such a word were in Scripture , will he not confesse it to be figurative , and not proper , and so not fit for this Dispute ?

3. Else when he saith , that Christs death procured our pardon , he meaneth that it procured it self .

2. Neither is imputation of Righteousnesse any part of pardon but a necessary antecedent ; so that here is no part of pardon yet in all this .

3. The same may be said of Gods Acceptation .

4. It s Application is a large phrase , and may be meant of severall acts ; but of which here , I know not .

5. How can he call it , A gracious Acceptation , a gracious imputation , a free Application , if it were the same thing which the Law required that was paid ? To pay all according to the full exaction of the Obligation , needeth no favour to procure acceptance , imputation , or application . Can Justice refuse to accept of such a payment ? Or can it require any more ?

Object . But it is of grace to us , though not to Christ .

Answ. Doth not that clearely intimate , that Christ was not in the Obligation ? that the Law doth threaten every man personally ; Or else it had been no favour to accept it from another .

3. That Mr. Owen giveth up the cause at last , and saith as Grotius ( having it seemeth not understood Grotius his meaning ) appeareth p. 141 , 142 , 143.

For 1. he acknowledgeth that the payment is not made by the party to whom remission is granted , ( and so saith every man that is a Christian . )

2. He saith , It was a full valuable compensation , ( therefore not of the same . )

3. That by reason of the Obligation upon us , we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment , ( therefore Christs punishment was not in the Obligation , but only ours , & so the Law was not fully executed , but relaxed . )

4. He saith he meaneth not that Christ bore the same punishment due to us , in all accidents , of duration and the like ; but the same in weight and pressure , ( therefore not the same in the Obligation , because not fully the same : Not the same numerically ; nor perhaps specifically in all respects , if the losse of Gods Love and Image , and incurring his hatred , the corruption of the body , the losse of right to , and use of all the creatures and the losse of all comforts corporall or spirituall , &c. were any part of the curse . ) yet that it was in the greatest respects of the same kinde , I doubt not .

5. He saith , God had power so farre to relax his owne Law , as to have the name of a surety put into the Obligation , which before was not there ; and then to require the whole debt of that surety .

And what saith Grotius more then this ? If the same thing in the Obligation be paid , then the Law is executed ; and if executed ( properly and fully ) then not relaxed . Here he confesseth that the sureties name was not in the Obligation ; and that God relaxed the Law to put it in . Now the maine businesse that Grotius there drives at , is but to prove this relaxation of the Law , and the non-execution of it on the offenders threatned .

I Iudge that Mr. Owen hath no better successe in his next assault of Grotius , on that question , [ whether God manage this work of relaxing the Law , punishing Christ for us , &c. as a Creditor , or as an absolute Master , or as a Judge under Lawes , or as the supreme Rector ? the last of which Grotius maintaineth ? He that readeth Grotius and Vossius own words , doth need no further defensative against the force of Mr. Owens Answers .

But this is nothing to me .

Onely I would not have any truth to fare the worse for Grotius his defection . It was himself that deserved the discredit , and not the Truth of God .

The third and last contradicted Article is , That no man is actually and absolutely justified upon the meer payment of the debt by Christ , till they become Beleevers .

Against this , you send me to both the forementioned Authors .

Answ. 1. When I first cast my eye upon the two fore-cited Disputations in Maccowski , I had thought he had spoke onely of the universall conditionall Justification of men , when he saith , that active Iustification was at the begining of the first promise ; But my charitable thoughts I soon saw were mistaken .

But I find , as his Doctrine is very strange , so are his proofs as slender , as any mans you could have sent me to .

1. Is it not strange that Active justification should be perfected 5000. yeares before Passive justification is in being ? I thought Passive justification had been the mediate effect of the Active ; And that God had justified no man , who is not thereby justified .

2. And as strange and abhorred to me , is the other part of his doctrine , viz. That Faith onely taketh knowledge of justification formerly wrought .

And his Arguments are as weak as the doctrine erroneous .

1. The first is Because the Object must needs go before the Act.

Answ. But is it not pity that so excellent a Doctor should think that justification ( & that not only in offer , but in actuall being ) should be the object of justifying Faith ? I am ashamed to confute so sencelesse an assertion . Sure it is Christ , and not actuall justification that is the object . When the Scripture saith , that Whosoever beleeveth shall be justified is it a learned Exposition which thus interpreteth it ? [ You that are elect , are already justified , and if you will beleeve it , you shall know it ; ]

2. He citeth Paraeus , saying , that Faith doth not effect justification , but accept it .

Answ. 1. They that say , Faith is the instrumentall cause of justification , must needs say , that Faith effectth it .

2. Faith accepteth Christ for justification .

3. It accepteth not justification as being actually and absolutely our owne before the acceptance : But it accepteth a conditionall justification offered to me , that by the acceptance it may become absolutely mine .

His citing of Tossanus words is nothing for him : For when hee saith , that All the Elect are justified in Christ , in respect of the merit thereof it is no more then to say that Christ hath merited their justification : which who denyeth ?

But the great Argument which he and all of his judgement do trust to , is this : If the surety so undertake or discharge the debt , that the creditor rest satisfied with that undertaking or discharge ; then is the debtor free from the debt . But Christ hath so undertaken and discharged the particular debts of the Elect ; therefore the Elect are freed .

Answ. 1. Payment is refusable , or not refusable : That payment which is of the same thing in the Obligation , either by our selves or our Delegate , is not by the Creditor refusable ; so that if we had paid it , or Christ had been our Delegate , appointed by us to pay the same that was due , then God could not have refused to take that payment : But Christ being appointed to this by the Father , and not by us ; and also paying not the very same , but the value , God might have refused the payment .

2. Where the payment is not refusable , there the discharge of the debtor is not refusable , but doth follow ipse facto : But where the payment is refusable , ( as here it was ) the Creditor may accept it upon what termes he pleases , and chuse to give the Debtor an absolute discharge ; so that it being the full agreement and pleasure both of the Creditor and the Surety , the father and the sonne , that the Debtor should have no discharge by the payment but upon a certaine condition by him to be performed , no doubt he shall have none till he have performed it .

3. So that Gods accepting the payment and being satisfied with it , may be understood .

1. In respect to the Surety , and the value of his payment ; and so God was well pleased and fully satisfied in Christs payment , as bein the full value that his justice did require , and beyond which he expected no more at his hands .

2. Or it may be spoken in reference to the debtor , the sinner , and the effecting of his freedome : And so God was not immediately upon Christs payment , so satisfied or well pleased with the particular offenders , as to deliver and discharge them without requiring any thing at their hands .

1. For he will first have them perform the imposed condition of taking Christ who hath bought them , for their only Saviour , Husband , and Lord .

To these of Maccovius , Mr. Owen in the 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 the curse , and take away the Obligation which was against us ipso facto . And I think to be justified , is but to be freed from the curse or condemnation ; and to be pardoned , is nothing else but to be freed from the obligation to punishment . And is remission and justification the immediate effect of Christs death ?

What ever this Writer thinketh in this , is nothing to us : But because I would not have you so palpably and dangerously erre , let mee say a little more against this mistake . You may remember I have oft told you , of how great moment it is in Divinity , to be able soundly to distinguish betwixt immediate & Mediate Effects of Christs Death . ( I think Tho. Moore meant the Immediate and Mediate Effects , which he calleth Ends which hath caused a great many pages about the Ends of Christs Death , to be written by his Antagonists to little purpose . ) Now I would have you know , that this actuall Remission and Justification , are no Immediate , but Mediate effects of Christs Death ; no , nor a personall right thereto if there be any such thing distinct from actuall freedome .

And to this end I pray you weigh these Arguments .

1. What Right soever God giveth to men to things supernaturall such as justification , remission , adoption ) he giveth by his written Lawes . But by these Lawes hee hath given no such thing to any Beleever , ( such as are the Elect before conversion , ( therefore , &c.

The major is evident : Gods Decree giveth no man a personall right to the mercy intended him . And for the minor , no man can produce any Scripture giving to unbeleevers such a right .

2. If God hate all the workers of iniquity , and we are all by nature the children of wrath , and without faith it is impossible to please God , and he that beleeveth not is condemned already ; then certainly the Elect while they are unbeleevers are not actually , de facto , no nor in personall Right , delivered from this hatred , wrath , displeasure and condemnation . But the major is the very words of Scripture ; therefore , &c.

3. If we are justified onely by Faith , then certainly not before Faith : But we are justified onely by Faith ; therefore , &c.

I doe in charity suppose that you will not answer so groslely , as to say , we are justified in foro Dei , before Faith , and onely in foro conscientiae , by Faith , till you can finde one word in Scripture which saith , that an unbeleever is justified , If I thought you were of this opinion , I should think it an easie task to manifest its falshood .

And if you say that we are justified in Gods Decree before Faith :

I answer , 1. It is no justification ; shew me the Scripture that calleth it so .

2. Nay , it clearely , implyeth the contrary . For Decreeing is a term of Diminution , as to justifying . He that saith he is purposed to free you from prison , &c. implyeth that as yet it is not done . To be justified or saved in Decree , is no more but that God decreeth to justifie and save us ; and therefore sure it is yet undone .

4. If we are exhorted while we are unbeleevers , to be reconciled to God , and to beleeve for remissions of sins ; then sure we are not yet reconciled nor remitted ; But the former is evident in Scripture ; therefore , &c.

5. No man dare affirm , that we are immediatly upon Christs death , delivered actually , and ipso facto , from the power or presence of sin , nor from afflictions and death , which are the fruits of it ; nor yet that we are freed from the distance and separation from God which sin procured . And why then should we think that we were immediately delivered from the guilt and condemnation ?

I know the common answer is , that justification is an immanent act , and therefore from eternity ; but Sanctification is a transient act . But I have disproved this in the Treatise , and cleared to you , that justification is also a transient Act : Otherwise Socinianisme were the soundest doctrine , that Christ never needed to satisfie , if we were justified from eternity . Yet ( to confesse the truth ) I was long deceived with this Argument my self , taking it upon trust from Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble , ( whom I valued above most other men ; and so continued of that same judgement with these Authors you alledge , and remained long in the borders of Antinomianisme , which I very narrowly escaped : And it grieveth me to see many of our Divines to fight against Jesuites and Arminians with the Antinomian weapons , as if our cause afforded no better ; and so they run into the far worse extream .

I undertake to manifest to you , that this Doctrine of Christs immediate Actuall delivering us from guilt , wrath , and condemnation , ] is the very pillar and foundation of the whole frame and fabrick of Antinomianisme .

But these things which you draw out of me here unseasonably ; I am handling in a fitter place , ( in a small Tract of Vniversall Redemption : ) But the last week I have received Amiraldus against Spanhemius exercitations , who hath opened my very heart , almost in my own words ; and hath so fully said the very same things which I intended , for the greater part , that I am now unresolved whether to hold my hand , or to proceed .

The Lord give you to search after the truth in love , with a humble , unbyassed , submissive soul ; neither losing it through negligence and undervaluing , nor yet diverted from it by inferiour controversies , nor preverted by self-confidence , nor forestalled by prejudice , nor blinded by passion , nor lost in contentions , nor subverted by the now-ruling spirit of giddinesse and levity , nor yet obscured by the confounding of things that differ ; that so by the conduct of the Word and Spirit , you may attaine the sight of amiable naked truth , and your understanding may be enlightned , and your soul beautified by the reflexion and participation of her light and beauty , that your heart being ravished with the sense of her goodnesse , and awed by her Authority , you may live here in the constant embracements of her , and cordiall obedience to her , till you are taken up to the prime eternall Truth and Goodnesse .

Rom. 14. 9.

For to this end Christ both dyed , and rose , and revived , that he might bee Lord both of the dead and living .

Ephes. 1. 22.

And ( God ) hath put all things under his feet , and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church .

Heb. 5. 9.

And being made perfect , hee became the Author of eternall salvation to all them that obey him .

Revel. 20. 14.

Blessed are they that doe his commandements , that they may have right to the Tree of Life , and may enter in by the gate into the City .

Sayings of excellent Divines ; added to satisfie you who charge mee with Singularity .

D. Twisse his Discovery of Dr. Iacksons vanity , p. 528.

WHat one of our Church will maintain , that any one obtaines actuall Redemption by Christ without Faith ? especially considering that Redemption by the Blood of Christ , and forgivenesse of sinnes are all one , Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 14.

Byshop Hooper cited by Doctor Jackson .

( Christ ] onely received our infirmities and Originall Disease , and not the contempt of him and his Law .

Expounded by Dr. Twisse against Dr. Iackson , pag. 584.

His meaning in my judgement is onely this , that Christ hath made satisfaction for the imperfections of our Faith and holinesse , although we continue therein untill death : But he hath not made satisfaction for the contempt and hatred of his Word , &c. in case men doe continue therein unto death .

Alstedius Distinct. Theol. c. 17. pag. 73

The condition of the Covenant of Grace , is partly Faith , and partly Evangelicali obedience or holinesse of life proceeding from Faith in Christ .

Idem ibid. cap. 23.

Christ is our Righteousnesse in a causall sense , but not in a formall sence .

Sadeel . advers. human . satisfact. pag. 213.

Christs satisfaction is to them profitable to whom it is truly applied . The way of application is this , that the merits of Christ be imputed to us : This imputation is done when the Holy Ghost begetteth in us a true faith , which receiving the benefit of Christ , doth at once also produce in us the true fruits of our Regeneration .

Rivetus in Disput. de Satisfactione .

God was not bound to accept the satisfaction performed by another , although sufficient ; unlesse ( which he could not ) man had satisfied himself , and had born the punishment due to his sin ; therefore there was a necessity that a Covenant should intercede , and God himself propound a Mediator .

That there must an agreement intercede on his part who was satisfied , I have proved , without which the satisfaction had been in vain , Ibidem .

Ibidem . ibid. Thes. 4 , 5 , 6.

The Act which in satisfaction God performeth , it is of a supreme Judge , freely relaxing his own Law , and transferring the penalty on another : So that in this relaxation Gods supreme dominion may be observed : For how could God have relaxed his Law , if he had not been the supreme Rector , or had been under a Law himself ? And by the transferring the penalty from the sinner , & exacting it of the surety , the relation of a party offended , as such , is removed from God , &c. Iam. 4. 12.

So he proceedeth to prove , that God could and did relax his Law , as being positive , and so relaxable ; that it is abrogate , not expounded 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And what of it was relaxable , and what not , &c.

Bellarmine confesseth ( l. de just. cap. 7. ) that our opinion is right , if we mean , that Christ merits are imputed us , because they are given us , and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins , because Christ undertook the burden of satisfying for us , and reconciling us to God . Which Rivet approveth , Disp. de justific .

Dr. Twisse Vindic. Grat. l. 2. par. 2. crim . 3. §. 6.

I confesse salvation , and so pardon and adoption , are offered to all and singular men on condition they beleeve &c. And so I deny not , that Redemption is so farre obtained for all and every man .

Dr. Twisse against Cotten , pag. 74.

Still you prove that which no man denyeth , viz. That God purposed life to the world upon condition of obedience and repentance ; provided that you understand it right , viz. that obedience and repentance is ordained of God , as a condition of life , not of Gods purpose .

Dr. Twisse Consid. of Tilenus Synod dort & Arles reduced to prac . pag. 61.

Ger. Vossius interpreteth the will of God touching the salvation of all of a conditionall will , thus ; God will have all to be saved , to wit , in case they beleeve ; which conditionall will in this sence , neither Austin did , nor doe we deny .

Idem pag. 143 , 144.

I willingly professe that Christ dyed for all in respect of procuring the benefit ( of pardon and salvation ) conditionally , on condition of their faith .

So also , pag. 154 , 161 , 165 , 170 , 194. And Discovery of Doctor Iacksons vanity , p. 527. 551.

Iunius Parallel . l. 3. Heb. 5. 9.

For the promise of salvation is made to obedience , and be queathed to it in the Testament of Christ himself dying .

Paraeus in Hebr. 5. 9.

To obey Christ is not onely to professe his Name , but to acknowledge him the onely perfect Redeemer , to cleave to him in true affiance , and to live worthy the Gospell . This condition in the whole Gospell is required in those that shall be saved . Universall Grace belongeth onely to the obedient .

Piscator in Heb. 5. 9.

Christ is not the Author of salvation to all men , but onely to those that obey him , that is , who beleeve his Promises , and obey his Precepts .

Aretius in Heb. 5. 9.

The benefit of Redemption is universall , and indeed belongs to all in generall , so be it we obey him .

Calvin in Luk. 1. 6.

We must so expound whatsoever the Scripture speaks of the Righteousnesse of men , that it overthrow not the forgivenesse of sins , whereon it resteth as a building on its foundation . They who simply expound it , that Zachary and Elizabeth were righteous by Faith , because they were freely accepted of God for the Mediatours sake , do wrest the words of Luke to a strange sence : And as to the matter it self , they say something , but not the whole . I confesse indeed , that the righteousnesse which is ascribed to them , ought to be acknowledged as received from the Grace of Christ , and not to the merit of works ; yet the Lord , because he imputed not to them their sins , doth dignifie their holy life , with the title of Righteousness . The folly of the Papists is easily refelled , who oppose this Righteousness to the Righteousness of Faith ; when as it flowes from it , so it ought to be placed in subordination to it , that so there be no disagreement between them .

Perkins Vol. 1. p. 662. The true Gain .

And lest any should imagine , that the very act of Faith in apprehending Christ , justifieth , we are to understand , that Faith doth not apprehend by power from it self , but by vertue of the Covenant . If a man beleeve the Kingdome of France to be his , it is not therefore his ; yet if he beleeve Christ and the Kingdome of Heaven by Christ , to be his , it is his indeed ; Not simply , because he beleeves , but because he beleeves upon commandment and promise : For in the tenour of the Covenant , God promiseth to impute the obedience of Christ to us , for our righteousness , if we beleeve .

Perkins Vol. 1. p. 476. on Hab. 2. 4.

Justice mentioned in the word is two-fold , the justice of the Law , and the justice of the Gospell : The justice of the Law hath in it all points and parts of justice , and all the perfection of all parts ; and it was never found in any upon earth except Adam and Christ . The justice of the Gospell hath all the parts of true justice , but it wants the full perfection of parts . And this kinde of justice is nothing else but the conversion of a sinner , with a purpose , will , and endeavour to please God , according to all the Commandments of the Law . Thus was Noah just , Iob , Zachary , Elizabeth ; and thus must the just man be taken in this 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 Chris . — 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 Chris . — 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 .