Aphorisms of Justification, Objections
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.