Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 79
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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.