Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 20 – Thesis 21
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 thē, 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.