Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Part

Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable · Part

p. 1A PREMONITION.

MY work at preſent is but to lay down ſo much of the Chriſtian Doctrine briefly, as is neceſſary to be underſtood for the reconciling of the Controverſies about Predeſtination, Providence, Grace and Free-will: And therefore paſs over …any other weighty Points, and muſt not ſtand largely to prove all …s I go, which carrieth its own evidence: The true nature of the firſt …aw or Covenant deſerveth a more accurate diſcuſſion than I can here …ake; and much paſſeth as certain with ſome, which hath but little …roof.

And here I meet with theſe different Opinions: 1. Some ſay that the …ondition of the firſt Covenant was not Innocency, but ſincerity: And …at Innocency was only a Duty, neceſſary neceſſitate praecepti, but not …edii: or that it was ut medium neceſſary ad melius eſſe, or to ſome cer…in degrees of felicity, whereof it was a condition, but not to felicity it …lf. And that the Covenant of Grace doth herein agree with it; both …f them damning man only for mortal ſin, and puniſhing them tempo…lly only for venial ſin. And he ſeemeth to be of this mind, who ſaith …at, Do this and live, or Innocency or Works was the Condition only …f Moſes Law, but that Adhere and Vanquiſh was the Condition of the …rſt Covenant: But theſe are ambiguous unſatisfactory terms: If the …eaning be, [Adhere to God and his Law by perfect Innocency, and van…uiſh all temptations to Sin,] this is the ſame with that Innocency which …e ſay was the Condition. But if he mean only, [Adhere to me ſin…erely by love as thy Ultimate End, and vanquiſh all temptations which …ould draw thee from me, to another Ultimate End or God,] this is …he ſame with the firſt opinion; which many Papists ſeem to hold.

2. But the more common Opinion is that which I aſſert, That Inno…ency was the Condition, not only of Life eternal, but of all the be…efits of Gods Covenant, and the leaſt ſin the forfeiture of all.

They that are for the firſt Opinion think, that if Adam had committed …ut a ſmall or venial ſin (as a ſinful thought or deſire after the forbidden …ruit, without the act or full conſent) it had been againſt Gods natural Goodneſs and Juſtice to have condemned him to Hell for it. And con…quently that Chriſt died not to pardon the pains of Hell as due for ſuch …ttle ſins; but only temporal ſmaller puniſhments.

But God beſt knoweth his own Nature; And nature telleth us, That …ll ſin deſerveth puniſhment: And he that ſinneth, ſo far removeth his …eart from God, and forfeiteth his Spirit or Grace: And he that hath …nce ſo turned from God in the leaſt degree, cannot of himſelf return …or heal himſelf; and had no promiſe of Gods Grace to do it: And …herefore it is not to be ſuppoſed that he ſhould ſin no more, but ſuch a …inute ſin; for greater will come in preſently at that breach, unleſs God …ecover him, which he was not in Juſtice bound to do: And no one know…th ſo well as God how much malignity is in the ſmalleſt ſin; And it was as …aſie for ſinleſs Adam to have continued ſinleſs, as for carnal men now …o forbear groſs ſin. And he that ſinneth deſerveth not Heaven or Life; …nd there are divers degrees of puniſhment in Hell, according to the p. 2degrees of Sin: And Chriſt died for all our ſins: therefore they d… every one deſerve death: which conſiſted not with a right to Life: therefore not with a right to Heaven: And an immortal Soul was not naturally to be annihilated; therefore to live in ſome puniſhment as ſeparated: And Rom. 3. 9. all were under Sin, yet all had not groſs S… ▪ Rom. 6. 23. The wages of Sin is Death. Rom. 5. 12. Death paſſed on al…, for that all have ſinned. Rom. 2. 12. As many as have ſinned with… Law, ſhall periſh without Law. And we muſt pray for the pardon of a… Sin: And unpardoned Sin will damn men. Theſe are the reaſons … this ſide.

They of the other Opinion ſay, That the Goſpel-Covenant ſhewe… Gods Nature as well as the firſt Law: That God had not been unjuſt i… deed, if he had permitted him to fall into great Sin, and ſo to peri… who committed the leaſt: for he ſo permitted Adam to commit the firſt that was before innocent: But the Juſtice of God bound him not ſo it do: nor would have damned a Lover of God, for a ſmall Sin, no more than now: That we muſt not feign a Law which we cannot prove▪ That God changeth not his holy Nature, and therefore not that Law, which is the expreſſion of it: That Chriſt died for all Sin, and all needs pardon; but that proveth not that the leaſt deſerved death, much leſs Hell; but that by Chriſt's Death the deſerved puniſhment muſt be remitted; that all, even Infants, are guilty of mortal Sin in Adam: The Death is the wages of that Sin which brought it, but not of the leaſt: That Adam's Law was not ſeverer than that by Moſes, which ſaith, D… this and live, and yet condemned not men for ſmaller ſins; That God proclaimeth pardon of ſome Sin, in the very Law of Nature as from his Nature, Exod. 34. and the Second Commandment, That Nature teacheth all the World to believe it: That God ſaid not to Adam, [… the day that thou thinkeſt a vain thought,] but [That thou eatest,] &c. That mortal Sin is pardonable by Chriſt which elſe could not by the firſt Law: but God could otherwiſe have pardoned a vain thought, if he would: That no Text of Scripture ſaith, that every Sin deſerveth Hell, nor is threatned with Death.]

And as the condition of the Penalty, ſo the condition of the Promiſe to Adam is here alſo controverted by Divines: 1. Some ſay that the condition of Life was perſonal, perfect, perpetual Obedience till … change; which God would make as he did by Henoch when it pleaſed him: (which ſeemeth to me the probableſt Opinion).

2. Others think that Adam was to have continued in Eden for ever under that ſame conditional Law (which is leſs probable.)

3. Others think, that had he over-come the firſt temptation, but ſo far as to adhere and vanquiſh, that is, to continue the love of God, and not to eat that Fruit, or commit any other mortal Sin, which of its nature killeth Love, he had been confirmed, as the promiſed Reward.

4. I have lately met with an exceeding ingenious M. S. (written partly againſt my ſelf, after others) which aſſerteth, 1. That the Glory of Juſtice is the end of Gods Government. 2. That Do this (perfectly) and live, or Sin (at all) and die, are the conſtant terms of Juſtice under every Covenant. 3. That if Adam had performed but one … of Obedience, by that Law, he ſhould have been rewarded with confirmation, or the Holy Ghoſt (as the Angels) and with everlaſting life. 4. That now all our Reward is only the Act of Gods Juſtice, giving … life, as merited by us in Chriſt on the terms of the Law that ſaith, Do this p. 3and live, Sin and die; in whom we are perfectly innocent and rewardable; and we have no rewardable Righteouſneſs, nor any to juſtifie us; but perfect Innocency imputed; becauſe as not to be a Sinner is no merit of a Reward, ſo pardon of Sin is no Title to a Reward, &c.

It is not my preſent taſk to clear up all theſe Difficulties, (having done more towards it in my Methodus Theologiae); but only ſo much as our preſent conciliatory work requireth: But yet becauſe I and the matter in hand are nearly concerned in the M. S. I ſhall briefly animadvert on all the ſubſtance of it; having firſt ſaid of the condition of the penalty but a few words.

I. I am loth to confound the certainties with the uncertainties, in this matter. 1. It is certain, that Gods Law of Nature was mans firſt and principal Law; to which the ſupernatural Revelations were added, and comparatively few.

2. It is certain that Gods Law was perfect, and that both as the impreſs and expreſſion of Gods perfect Wiſdom and Holineſs, and as the Rule of Perfection to Adam: And therefore that it obliged him to perfection.

3. But this Perfection to which he was obliged, was not at firſt, all that his nature would be capable of at laſt; It was not his duty the firſt hour of his life, to Know or Do as much as after the longeſt time and experience, and as much as in heavenly perfection: But he was bound to Know, and Love, and Do at firſt, as much as at that time his nature was capable of, ſuppoſing neceſſary Concauſes and Objects.

4. This is ſummed up in, Loving God with all the Heart, Mind and Might. But the All in maturity and after full experience, and in Glory, is more than the All in unexperienced juniority. To know, love and obey God, to the utmoſt intention of his preſent natural Power, ſuppoſing due Objects, media and concauſes, was Adam's duty and all defectiveneſs herein was culpable, or ſin.

5. All ſin of its own nature deſerveth puniſhment: Therefore ſo would the leaſt culpable thought or word in Adam, or the leaſt culpable defect in the extent or intention of any holy affection in him.

6. It is certain that Adam's eating the forbidden Fruit, or any one ſuch ſin as conſiſteth not with the predominancy of his Love to God as God, in habit, ſuch as is now inconſiſtent with true Grace, and is called mortal, was to be puniſhed with death temporal and eternal, according to the Juſtice of that Law.

7. They are different queſtions, 1. What God might do. 2. What he would do, (as decreed). 3. What he muſt do, (as neceſſary becauſe of Juſtice or Veracity), to the breaker of that Law. And it is clear that God might, as an Act of Juſtice, puniſh the leaſt culpable thought, or remiſsneſs of degree of Love, with Annihilation, or with any pain-everlaſting, which to the Sinner were no worſe than Annihilation. Becauſe, 1. Antecedently to his Law, he might have done that much as an affliction without ſin. 2. And after he did no way (that I know of) oblige himſelf to the contrary to a Sinner, before the Covenant of Grace. 3. And having threatned puniſhment in general, he might chooſe what puniſhment he ſaw fit.

8. What God would do as decreed, the prediction or the event only can tell us.

9. That God must (by neceſſity of Juſtice and Truth) puniſh the least ſinful thought or remiſsneſs, with ſome degree of puniſhment, according to that Law, ſeemeth to me ſomewhat clear.

p. 41. And yet it is more clear that it is various degrees of puniſhment which are comprized in the word [Death] or [Filius mortis] in the threatning; And that we cannot ſay, that Justice made it neceſſary to God to puniſh the leaſt vain thought or remiſsneſs with the greateſt puniſhment, or damnation.

But (as to the uncertainties) 1. With what degree of puniſhment God in Justice muſt, or would have puniſhed a vain thought, or any ſin conſiſtent with his habitual prevalent love? 2. Or whether a vain ☞ thought muſt needs have ſeparated Soul and Body, or cauſed that which we call Hell? 3. Or whether God could in Juſtice have pardoned that vain thought, upon leſs ſatisfaction than the ſufferings of Chriſt? Theſe with many others are queſtions too hard for me, what ever they may be to wiſer men.

But I am ſatisfied that God would never have damned in Hell any Soul that had the habitual predominant love of God, though culpably remiſs, and otherwiſe ſinful, while he remained ſuch; yea that Hell and ſuch love of God are inconſiſtent: And therefore if any ſuch ſin would have damned Adam, it muſt be by further quenching and expelling the Spirit of Grace, or forfeiting and loſing Divine aſſiſtance, and ſo firſt loſing that habit of love. The reſt I leave to the more illuminated.

II. Now as to the M. S. (ſaid to be written by a young man of New England, deceaſed, M. W.) it hath ſo much accurateneſs, that in reading it, I greatly lament the Authors death, before maturity and converſe had rectified ſome of his notions, and he had longer improved his excellent underſtanding for the Church. And becauſe my Doctrine is particularly oppoſed in it, I ſhall ſtay to animadvert on the ſubſtance of the Book.

And it may be reduced to theſe Propoſitions.

1. The great fundamental point of it is, That man was made to glorifie Gods Juſtice for ever.

Animad. This is a great truth, not well conſidered by many: But it is but a part of the truth, which is, That man was made to glorifie Gods Vit… Power, Wiſdom and Love, and is governed eminently by Wiſdom, making ORDER, and juſtly keeping it, together with mercy, becauſe the glory of Holineſs and Love alſo is the end. Which I have more carefully opened hereafter.

§. 2. M. S. The reaſon of ſpecial government is, That man is cauſa conſilip; Though as he deſireth and ſeeketh good in general, he is but a natural Agent: And therefore Twiſſe erreth in ſaying, that God …iay puniſh an innocent man, becauſe he may afflict a beast.

Anſ. 1. By cauſa conſilio he meaneth a rational free Agent, having an Intellect and Free-will; This indeed maketh and proveth man a ſubject made to be morally governed. But when he had laid all his ſtreſs on this Free-will under the name of cauſa conſilio, he went too far in ſeeming with Gibieuf (whom he citeth and followeth as his great Light▪) to confine the name of true liberty to the Amplitude and Holineſs of the Will, which is another kind of Liberty: And (as Armatus truly ſaith) Gibieuf was fitter for a ſcraphick pious Diſcourſe (in a Platonick ſtrain) than for ſuch Controverſies. 2. As Rada and other Scotiſts well prove, there is no Act of the Will, even to good in general, which is not free, though ſome be neceſſary, and the inclination is natural and not free. 3. Yea he proveth, that there is no ſuch thing as a Volition of any good ingenere, ſaving as the generical nature of good is found in ſome particular (in eſſe cognito.) 4. Twiſſe was not ſo weak as to call that p…niſhment p. 5which is not for ſin, but calleth it Affliction or Cruciatum only. And he ſpeaketh not what God may do by his ordinate Will: But I think that you are in the right, and he in the wrong, becauſe the very making us men, and ſo governed Subjects, is a declaration of Gods ordinate Will, not to make us miſerable but for ſin.

3. M. S. Adam's whole man was ſanctified, and ſo fitted to obey, and to glorifie Juſtice: His free-will was not an indifferency, but (as Gib.) that noble virtue of his Soul, by which he could go above all created good, ſo that Liberty and Eupraxy or Obedience are all one: But we cannot ſtir an inch to God, above the Creature. Liberty is to imitate God, whoſe Will cloſeth with himſelf, and resteth in himſelf for ever: And mutability is but an adjunct of our Liberty.

An. I have better opened and diſtinguiſhed Liberty before, Lib. 1. Natural Liberty is to be diſtinguiſhed from moral, which you deſcribe; and vehemently aſſert the former under the name of cauſa conſilio that cannot be forced: But meer indifferency or mutability is no Liberty it ſelf.

4. M. S. Adam was not made with notions in his Mind, no more than with colours in his Eyes; but he was made able and fit to ſee God in the frame of Nature, eſpecially in his own Will, as inclined to univerſal good—.

An. Scaliger and others think, that Idea's are born in us, which maketh the Chicken fly at the ſhadow of the Kite, &c. But I rather ſay as you, that it is but a Diſpoſition; which will ſo eaſily act, that ſome call it an Idea, and it is the ſame thing that they mean while they differ about the name.

§. 5. M. S. Do this and live, is the way that Juſtice will be glorified in: And that doing would merit life, Adam either knew by nature, or ſupernaturally, at least was confirmed in it by ſupernatural revelation.

An. This is all true.

§. 6. M. S. Do this and live, as the only terms of life are a Catholick and Theological axiom: Not the words; but Energetick Wiſdom printed on the frame. And the meaning is, cloſe with the laſt end; or with the true Univerſal God as ſuch, which is the ſum of the Decalogue: Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. The Wills cloſing with God: And Obedience is in the ſubordinate faculties executing the pleaſure of the Will.]

An. 1. Obedience is firſt in the Will it ſelf. 2. Tou do not intelligibly acquaint us whether by [Do this] you mean any ſincere cloſing with God as▪ God and our End, above all Creatures, as the godly now do, though with culpable remiſsneſs and imperfections; or only the moſt perfect Love and Obedience, without any imperfection or remiſsneſs, or vain irregular thought that is culpable. But by [Do this] I perceive you mean, Take God for thy God, and love, adore, and truſt him.

§. 7. M. S. This was to be expreſſed by eating of the Tree of Life, and not of that of Good and Evil, ſacramentally, to acknowledge alſo the Soveraignty of God.

An. 1. All Obedience formally reſpecteth Gods Soveraignty. 2. No doubt the Trees were ſymbolical, and the remembrance of them ſhould yet teach us to prefer living to God, before a ſelfiſh, diſturſtful, needleſs knowledge; the increaſe of which increaſeth ſorrow. 3. But that Adam was commanded to eat of the Tree of Life, I cannot prove, unleſs the general obligation to chooſe the beſt was as a Command.

§. 8. M. S. To be naturally happy is proper to God: therefore Adam was to be led to it freely by a Covenant.

p. 6An. To be happy neceſſarily, and independently, and primarily, is proper to God: But you can never prove it any contradiction or impoſſible for God to make a Creature naturally happy; nor that there are not ſuch.

§. 9. Here the M. S. citeth ſome words of his Gibieuf, making our Being in God initially, and finally to be our ſtate of amplitude and liberty, and our going out from God, to be our particularity and ſtate of neceſſity; as if we were pre-existent in God, and our individuation ceaſed upon o… return into him as our End.

An. But theſe are Platonick Phantaſms; And Gibieuf who was a devout Oratorian, and talketh too oft of our Deification, as Benedict… de Benedictis, Barbanſon, Baker, and other Fryers that talk phanatically, muſt be read with caution and exception; and as the Soul need not fear too near a Union with God, as the loſs of its individuation, ſo neither muſt it deſire or hope for ſuch.

§. 10. M. S. An unchangeable ſtate of Happineſs in the love of God, is called Eternal Life.

An. No doubt but that is called Eternal Life in the fulleſt ſenſe, which actually endureth to eternity as to that particular Subject: And ſo, 1. The life of Glory perfectively. 2. And a confirmed ſtate of Sanctity here initially, are uſually called Eternal Life. But 3. Whether the loſſable ſtate, which the Angels fell from, and Adam fell from, or that meaſure of Grace, which the ancient Fathers thought the juſtified may fall from, be never ſo called alſo, I cannot prove.

§. 11. M. S. Adam's promiſed Happineſs, was, 1. Eſſential, in this perfect holineſs or love of God. 2. Complemental, in the enjoying God i… all the ſanctified Creatures in that Paradiſe, but not to be tranſlated to Heaven, which Christ only procureth us.

An. I inclined to that Opinion 26 years ago, when I wrote the Aphoriſms which you oppoſe: But I now incline more to the contrary, and rather think man ſhould have been tranſlated to Heaven as Henoch and Elias were, upon many reaſons, which I now paſs by: Though I take it yet to be ſcarce certain to us.

§. 12. M. S. The Holineſs of God, is his loving himſelf as his End; And the third Perſon proceeding by a reflex act of the infinite Will and ſelf-love of God, is therefore called the Holy Spirit.

An. 1. This notion of Gods Holineſs (that it is his Self-love) is not to be contemned; It ſeemeth to be ſo, with this limitation, that you confine not his Holineſs to this, but take this only as the moſt eminent among the inadequate conceptions of it: For his whole Tranſcendency, in Being, Life and Knowledg, as being adoreable by the Creature, and its End, and the Fountain of all created Goodneſs, and ſpecially of Morality, is alſo Gods Holineſs. 2. But the ſaying that God is his own End, ſeemeth improper, though tolerable if ſpoken but analogically: For God neither hath nor is to himſelf a Cauſe nor an Effect, a Beginning nor an End. 3. That the third Perſon proceedeth by a reflex Act of the infinite Will, many School-men boldly ſay: And ſo ſome ſay, that he is Gods actual ſelf-love, which is …he ſame that you call his Holineſs: And ſome ſay, that he is the Divine Will or Love conſidered in it ſelf, as diſtinct from Vital Power, and Intellect (or Wiſdom.) But of this I have ſpoken more largely elſe-where.

§. 13. M. S. Adam's promiſed Reward was, to be fixed in an unchangeable ſtate of pleaſing God, by this Holy Spirit: not by infuſing any new quality which ſhould unchangeably fasten him to the Rule, (for no created thing can unchangeably keep a man from falling.)

p. 7An. 1. The promiſe to Adam is very obſcure: But Happineſs it muſt needs be, and everlaſting: 2. But it is paſt my reach to conceive how the Spirit of God can fix man in perfect holineſs without any fixing quality (as it's called) on his Soul. A conſtant Act the Soul muſt have: And 1. If that Act be cauſed by any Divine Impulſe, diſpoſing the Soul ſo to act, then that diſpoſition is a quality. 2. And if there be not both diſpoſition and habit, then the Soul will not in Glory be habitually, or qualitatively holy, but only actually. 3. And a habit-acting being perfecter than an act without a habit (or inclination) the Soul will be more imperfect in Glory, than in this ſtate of Grace. 4. Operari ſequitur eſſe: God fitteth all his Creatures to their works. And as when he will give Immortality, he will give a Nature fit for Immortality, even indiſſoluble and incorruptible; ſo when he giveth perpetuity of Love, he giveth a nature or habits fit for perpetual Action. Chriſt ſaith, A good Tree bringeth forth good fruit, and an evil Tree evil fruit: Make the Tree good, and his fruit good. 5. The Operations of Love in Glory, ſhould be ex potentia aut violentia, aut neutra, if there were no intrinſick diſpoſition or inclination to them. In a word, it is a contradiction, for a Soul to be perfectly holy, and not have the perfection of inclination to its Acts.

3. But if the meaning were, that no holy quality alone ſufficeth, without Gods Influx, that were no more than what muſt be faid of every Creature: without Divine Influx no Creature can be or operate a moment: No created thing of it ſelf, without God, can continue; How then ſhould it keep a man from falling: But if the Soul have any more goodneſs of nature or inclination in it than the Devils have, it muſt be a created thing, or God himſelf: If only God, that proveth not a Saint to be himſelf better than a Devil, as to nature or diſpoſition, but only that God in him is better.

His reaſon why the Sun is naturally fixed to its Operations, but not a glorified Soul, is (§. 14. M. S.) that one is a natural, and the other a voluntary Agent: One, as Gibieuf ſaith, Non agit, ſed agitur, the other doth agere & non tantum agitur.]

An. 1. Gibieuf and you were deceived, in thinking that ſuch naturals non agunt: Paſſive matter doth not Act ex principio eſſentiali (unleſs Dr. Gliſſons and Campanellas Doctrine hold true.) But the three Active Natures, Intellectual, Senſitive and Vegetative (and ſo Fire and the Sun) do ex principio Activo eſſentali agere: but nothing doth Act, without an Antecedent Influx to action from the firſt Cauſe, in which it is paſſive: For no Creature is Independent. 2. Voluntas eſt quaedam Natura, quamvis libera: To move naturally only and not freely is proper to Agents meerly natural, diſtinct from free: But to move freely, and yet from a fixed principle, which ſhall infallibly determine the Soul to act freely, is not a contradiction; nor that which Gibieuf ſhould deny to the glorified.

§. 15. M. S. Man, though a Creature, is the first Cauſe of his own action: He moveth and ſets himſelf on work: elſe he were not cauſa conſilio: But not immutable: elſe he were no Creature.

An. You ſet up Free-will and Power more groſly in terms than I dare do, though, I ſuppoſe, our meaning is the ſame. Had I ſaid thus, what had I heard? I only ſay, that man may be a cauſa prima ſecundum quid, of the moral ſpecification or modification of his own Actions: But he is ſimpliciter no cauſa prima of the Action in genere actionis: elſe he were God. But a cauſa principalis he may be called, though not prima. 2. You never proved that God cannot make a Creature naturally p. 8immutable dependently on himſelf, that is, ſuch as will never change unleſs God change them; nor that Jeſus Chriſt is not ſuch in his Humanity.

§. 16. M. S. This confirmation is not by being in Heaven; but by the Holy Ghoſts ſpecial working on the Soul, revealing ſtill Gods Perfections to it.

An. And doth this Operation of the Holy Ghoſt make the Soul never the better, in nature or diſpoſition, but only in Act? Though it's true, that no habits immutably fix without the Influct of the Holy Ghoſt.

§. 17. M. S. Merit is the ſuitableneſs of the work to the wages.

An. Merit is manifold, and needs better explication: In the Comm… tative Juſtice of meer Proprietors, merit is indeed the Comparative value of things, and in works, their ſuitableneſs as you ſay to the wages, that is, their equal worth. But in distributive governing Juſtice, there is no wages, but only Reward: And merit is the moral aptitude for Reward: which is as various as the Law is that one is governed by: There are five ſorts of Law, that by five ſorts or ways of Juſtice, require five ſorts of merit: 1. Gods Law of Innocency to Adam: where Juſtice called nothing, but perſonal perfect Obedience, Merit: 2. Gods Law to the Mediator, who was obliged perfectly to keep, 1. The whole Law of Nature. 2. The Law of Moſes. 3. A peculiar Law of Mediation (to die, riſe, do Miracles, &c.) The keeping of all this was Christ's Merit. 3. There is Chriſt's Law of Grace to fallen man (in the firſt, and in the perfect Editions,) where our keeping of it, is by Goſpel-Justice called in Scripture foreign, our worthineſs or merit, that is, in tantum, ſecundum quid, in relation to that Law. That is to repent and believe, to love God and obey him ſincerely. 4. There is the Law of Moſes, peculiar to the Jews, which hath its peculiar required merit. 5. And there are the Laws of Men appointed and allowed of God, which have their peculiar Juſtice and Merit. All theſe are not to be confounded, much leſs all denied, as if there were no merit but between Proprietors in Commutative Juſtice; In which ſenſe no Creature can merit of God.

§. 18. M. S. According to that Covenant, any one Act of Obedience in Adam would have merited confirmation and eternal life; that is, one act of holy love.

An. I believe it not, becauſe it is not written, nor naturally revealed, that I know of. My reaſons againſt it are, 1. It is dangerous to add to Gods Word.

2. The words [In the day that thou eateſt thou ſhalt die] ſeemeth to look further than to one firſt act or day, and is as much as whenſoever thou eateſt; though he ſhould obey till that time.

3. It is utterly improbable that Adam did not perform one Act of Love or Obedience before his Fall. For, 1. We are uncertain how long he ſtood; However confident ſome Rabbins, and Broughton and ſome others are, that it was the ſame day in which he was created. 2. You confeſs he was made with powers ſanctified and fitted to obey. 3. Gods Law of Love was written in his heart, and as old as himſelf; and could not but oblige a fit ſubject to the act. And he muſt ſin all that while that he loved not God as God. 4. He had many thoughts and affections all that while; which were ſinful if not animated by holy Love, and done in Obedience to God. 5. He ſpent ſome time, which was ſinfully ſpent, if not ſpent in Love and Obedience. 6. God ſpake to him, and ſo had ſenſible Communion with him, which muſt needs p. 9oblige him to ſome love. 7. He had a Law given him to dreſs and keep the Garden, which if he accepted not by conſent in Obedience to God, he ſinned. 8. He gave names to all the Creatures upon Gods bringing them to him; which muſt be done obediently or ſinfully. 9. He had the Law of Marriage given him, with the Woman; which if he received not in love and obedience he ſinned. 10. He had all the World before him to ſhew him Gods Perfections, and if yet he had not one act of love to God as God, he hainouſly ſinned. 11. He had the Law of Love and Obedience given him by way of Covenant, that is, binding him preſently to conſent; And he could not delay a willing conſent one minute or hour without ſin: And conſent is Love and Obedience in the firſt act. 12. He loved himſelf, and his Wife, and other Creatures before his Fall: But if he loved not God before, then he all that while loved himſelf, his Wife, and all the Creatures more than God, yea without God: And then they were his Idols. 13. Elſe he never uſed one Creature holily before his Fall, and therefore ſinfully. 14. You make Adam to have had leſs actual good before his Fall than the weakeſt Chriſtian now; If not than many wicked men; who have ſome moral good ſecundum quid, though not ſimpliciter.

4. I do not think that the Reward which Chriſt was to have for his fulfilling the Law was immutability or confirmation: For I think he had that in his very nature, by the Unity of the Divine and Humane in one Perſon. But I think that the perfect Glory of his Humanity was part of his Reward, Phil. 2. 7, 8, 9. Heb. 12. 23, &c. And therefore that Glory hath much more in it, than confirmation in Grace: But it's plain in the Goſpel, that it was not only one Act of Obedience, which was Chriſts condition, in order to his receiving the Fruits or full Reward of his Merits: But it was perfect Holineſs of Nature and Life to the end of his courſe on Earth. Elſe you muſt ſay that Chriſt's firſt Act of Obedience was his performance of his Covenant-Condition, and all the reſt for ſome other purpoſe only; which is abſurd.

5. One act of our Obedience now is not the fulfilling of all the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, nor entitleth us alone to Glory, unleſs God cut off our life as ſoon as that act is done: Perſeverance to the end is part of our Condition of Glory. And we know of no ſuch difference between Adam's Covenant or Caſe and ours, as will prove it otherwiſe with him.

6. Elſe it would make the Condition of the Covenant of Grace to be much harder and ſeverer than of the Law of Innocency; which is not likely: To perform one act of Love and Obedience, is not ſo hard as to do it to the death, though we loſe our lives in the expreſſions of it.

Object. But our firſt Faith giveth us Right to the Spirit of Confirmation and Immutability, though more muſt be done for Perfection.

Anſw. 1. It appeareth then that Perfection and Glory is more than Confirmation. 2. It is certain, that the Regenerate are mutable as to the degrees of Grace, and are far from Perfection at the firſt. 3. The generality of the Fathers and ancient Churches thought that true Juſtification, and Right to Heaven, and true Love to God, was loſt by many: And Auſtin himſelf and his Followers ſo thought. 4. And they that think otherwiſe yet know, that Glory is ſtill given us (quoad jus in the Promiſe) on condition of our perſeverance: And we ſhould hardly find ſo many Threatnings againſt them that fall away, if all might ſo eaſily know that the firſt act of Obedience doth ſo fix us, and give us in juſtice a Right to Immutability.

p. 10§. 19. M. S. The Arguments to prove that any one Act had the pròmiſe of Immutability and Glory are theſe, Argument 1. If God were to declare his rewarding Juſtice, then he muſt reward one act. Thus Bradwardi… alſo chideth his Maſter Lombard, as inclining to Pelagius, for holding that Adam could have forborn Sin by his Free-will, without Gods ſp…d…l Grace, that is, his Will that ſo it ſhould be: which he ſaith was neceſſ… ry before the Fall as well as ſince: and that elſe Adam by once not ſ… ning, when tempted, had merited Confirmation, as he ſaith the Angels did, being tempted by Leviathan, lib. 2. c. 10.

An. 1. God was not obliged to any Reward, but according to the tenor of his Law. Prove that his Law promiſed Glory or Immutability for one act? 2. Bonum eſt ex cauſis integris: one act is but a ſmall pa… of a mans life. The Promiſe was to the whole courſe only. 3. God did reward every act: His acceptance, and the continuance of all …he bleſſings of that Paradiſe, and the comfort of his Love, was a gre… Reward.

§. 20. M. S. If one act of Obedience deſerved unchangeable Happineſ… then God muſt beſtow it. But, &c.]

An. I deny the minor: One act deſerved it not. No act deſerved in Commutative Juſtice: And no act deſerved it of governing Juſtice, but ſuch as the Law antecedently made it due to.

§. 21. M. S. Merit, it is a fuitableneſs of the work to the wages. … that pleaſe God are under his good pleaſure; the fruit of which muſt be … enjoying of his Spirits infinite aſſiſtance. This Adam might have claimed … Juſtice, and gloried: for one act deſerveth a Reward.]

An. This is ſufficiently anſwered; 1. Wages ſtrictly taken is M… given by a Proprietary commutatively: It's blaſphemy to ſay that God can owe any Creature ſuch, for he can receive nothing but his own. The word when uſed to us, is improperly taken: But praemium a Reward we have; but no work deſerveth that, but by the ordinate Justice of the Law. Some few Papiſts talk of a dignity ex proportione oper…, but the Scotiſts and the wiſest of them deny any but, 1. Ex congruitate. 2. Ex pacto. Your ſuitableneſs may ſignifie either, 1. A congruity ad fines regiminis; or elſe ad praemium qua promiſſum: And thus it's true▪ But it's not proved that any one act was ſuch. 2. Or it may …ignifie a ſuitableneſs in proportion ex ſimplici dignitate operis, obliging the Governor antecedently to his Law. 2. Or obliging God as Proprietor to compenſation; And ſo it is untrue, that Merit is a ſuitableneſs of the work to the wages, here.

2. It's unproved that Gods pleaſedneſs muſt ever be ſhewed by the Spirits infinite aſſiſtance: or that one act deſerved this. It's unlike that the Angels that kept not their firſt ſtate, did never one act of Obedience, nor were never under Gods approbation; Prov. 16. 7. When a mans ways pleaſe the Lord, he maketh his Enemies to be at peace with him: God ſaith, This …is a Reward: You ſay leſs than eternal life is none; 1 King. 3. 10. The ſpeech of Solomon pleaſed the Lord: And yet one would think by his filthineſs, and Idolatry, and forſaking God, that he was not glorified, nor made immutable. With the Sacrifice of Alms God is well pleaſed, Heb. 13. 16. Phil. 4. 18. and with Relation-Duties, Col. 3. 20. And yet all that did them (even ſincerely) were not glorified then, nor abſolutely immutable.

§. 22. M. S. Arg. 2. Unchangeable miſery would have been the reward of one ſin: Ergo, &c.]

p. 11An. I deny the conſequen…e: Miſery was threatned to one ſin; Glory was not promiſed to one act of Obedience. Obedience, during life, is certainly due from Man to God: He that denieth it him in one act, denieth him his due: But he that giveth it him in one act, giveth him but little of his due. Your Argument is like theſe: The Souldier that is a Traytor in one act, deſerveth death: Therefore he that watcheth or fighteth but once deſerveth all his wages and honour. The Son that curſeth his Father once, deſerveth puniſhment▪ Therefore he that obeyeth him once deſerveth the Inheritance. He that is bound to pay an hundred pound forfeiteth his Bond if he leave a penny unpaid: Therefore he forfeits it not if he pay but a penny: The Servant that is hired for a day or year, doth forfeit his wages if he be idle or rebel an hour or a day: Therefore he deſerveth his wages, if he do Service but an hour or a day: The diſeaſe of one part may kill a man: Therefore the health of one part only will keep a man alive. He that is hired to build a Houſe or a Ship well, forfeits his wages for one hole, or groſs defect: Therefore he deſerveth his wages if he lay but one Brick or Board. But bonum eſt ex cauſts integris.

§. 23. M. S. His Sin is more his own than his Obedience. Anſ. The aſſiſtance of the Spirit could not take place in the firſt act, becauſe not deſerved: And his Obedience would have been as much his own as his Sin.

An. This is quite beyond the Jeſuites: 1. It's true that the rewarding gift or help of the Spirit (for confirmation) was not given Adam to his firſt act: But it's not true that he had no help of the Spirit: If you will not call Gods neceſſary Grace, which you ſaid did ſanctifie all his powers, by the name of the Spirits help; you muſt ſay, It was the help of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; without which he could have done nothing. 2. But can you think that God did as much to his Sin, as to his Sanctification; and cauſed it as much as he was ready to cauſe his firſt Obedience? Should he have been no more beholden to God for his Holineſs than for his Sin? This is too indifferent a Liberty, and not Gibieufs Amplitude. It is not poſſible for a Creature to have any thing that's good but of God, nor any good from God but by meer free Gift, as to the Good or Value; though it be by rewarding Juſtice quoad ordinem conferendi, and comparatively, why this man hath it rather than that.

§. 24. M. S. There is no ſtinting or determining, unleſs you ſtop here (at the first act.)

An. I deny it: There are three Opinions more that are all more probable. The firſt which ſuppoſeth the Reward of life eternal due upon the over▪ coming of the Devils firſt temptation, which would have drawn from the Love of God; And ſo [Love and Conquer once] was the Condition. The ſecond which ſuppoſeth that the Condition was the Conqueſt of this particular Temptation, to eat of the forbidden Fruit, and the after eating of the Tree of Life. The third which ſuppoſeth the only Condition of life eternal to the perſonal, perfect, perpetual Obedience, or perſeverance, till God of his own pleaſure ſhould tranſlate Adam, and end his life of trial. I take this laſt to have far moſt probability, for all the Reaſons before given: I am ſure that the tenor of the Law of Nature made it Adam's Duty ſtill to love God, and obey him, and reſiſt all that was againſt it: And I find no Promiſe that his Nature, or the Law of Nature ſhould be changed, for this or that act, or for conquering ſome one temptation. I find that p. 12Chriſt's own Covenant-Condition was more than one act: And the Condition of our Glory is overcoming, and being faithful to the death, and continuing in Chriſt. And I will not add to the Covenant of God.

§. 25. M. S. Arg. 4. From the nature of an obediental act: which includeth the approving of the whole Law.

An. 1. Approving the things that are excellent, is made conſiſtent with wickedneſs, Rom. 2. But I will ſuppoſe you to mean a full conſent to the Covenant of Innocency. But 2. How prove you that ſuch conſent was the whole condition of life, and that it might not be fallen from? and that Adam never did conſent before his Fall? and yet not ſin▪ 3. All the godly approve of Gods Law, and conſent to it, and love it, and yet merit not as keepers of it; for they break it, Rom. 7. 4. Yea Covenant-keeping to the laſt, as well as Covenant-conſent the firſt moment, is now to us the condition of immutable Glory.

§. 26. M. S. Adam would not obey at firſt, but ſuſpend while he looked about the World, to ſee if there were any good ſufficient for him below God: Therefore he ſinned not then.

An. This is before confuted: He could not in that Integrity, and after ſuch divine Revelation, be unreſolved one hour whether he muſt firſt love and obey his Maker, without ſin.

§. 27. God cannot freely give eternal life to a Creature without Reward for doing, becauſe the reaſonable Creature was made for the Glory of Juſtice.

An. 1. You may ſay, that God will not to man, but not that he cannot, nor that he doth not to any Angel. For man was not made only for the Glory of Juſtice, but of Power, and Love, or Goodneſs alſo. 2. It's certain, that God as a free Benefactor giveth many good things freely, and … as a Reward for doing: As 1. He ſo freely made all things good in the Creation, and gave man all his antecedent good: He ſo gave Ad… his primitive Holineſs, and Helps, and Paradiſe, and all the Creature…. 2. He ſo gave Chriſt to the World, without deſert: and ſo far pardoned the firſt ſin, as that cometh to. 3. He ſo far gave man the Covenant of Grace. 4. He ſo gave all Chriſt's Miracles, Reſurrection, Doctrine, the Scripture, &c. 5. He ſo gave Apoſtles and Miniſtry to the World. 6. He ſo ſendeth the Goſpel to ſome Nations and Perſons above others. 7. He ſo giveth to many the firſt ſpecial Grace, as he did to Paul. 8. He ſo giveth to many Kingdoms and Perſons Wealth, and Health, and Strength, and ſuch other mercies above others. 9. He ſo giveth greater meaſures of Grace to ſome than to others. 10. And it ſeemeth that he ſo (in part) giveth the ſame Glory to ſome that came in but at the laſt hour of the day. It is certain, that all in quantum tale, is from God only as a free Benefactor, or as the Amor primus: And the order of diſtributing it is two-fold: Some antecedent to mans merit or acts, and independent on it: And this is no Reward, (though ſometime it is an antecedent act of Juſtice, ſuch as is the making of a good Law or Promiſe.) And ſome conſequent juxta morman legis; And theſe are Rewards: And though God hath aſſured us now, that no man ſhall have Heaven but by rewarding Juſtice, yet that may be, becauſe he thought meet to place man firſt on Earth in a life of trial, and undetermined Liberty: But that he hath no Angel that was made Immutable, or that Chriſt was not made immutably holy, let them ſay that can prove it, for I cannot.

§. 28. M. S. It's like that the Angels that ſtood and they that fell had unequal help: for unequal Effects are of an unequal Cauſe. But Adam and the p. 13Devils had ſufficient Grace, and God forſook them not till they forſook him.

An. 1. This laſt I accept as true, and more than ſome will grant. 2. The firſt is above our reach: only we can ſay, both that God giveth more Grace to ſome than to others freely. 3. And yet he himſelf is ſimple and immutable in cauſing of various and mutable Effects.

§. 29. M. S. By Christs paſſive Obedience imputed we are pardoned and …uſtified, and by his active imputed we deſerve the Reward, and are under Gods approving Will.

An. 1. By the merit of his habitual, active and paſſive, that is, of his performing all his mediatorial Covenant with the Father, we are pardoned, and juſtified, and adopted to eternal life, principally as a Reward to Christ (not to us as meriting by him) and ſubordinately, according to Goſpel-Juſtice or Order, as a Reward to Believers for their Faith and Obedience; by him who will Reward every man according to his Works, and will be glorified in his Saints, and admired in Believers, becauſe they believed, 2 Theſſ. 1. 6, to 12. We are under Gods approving Will, principally as united to Chriſt, reconciled, juſtified, adopted; and ſubordinately as ſanctified and obedient. For the Father loveth us, becauſe we have loved Chriſt and believed, Joh. 16. 27. And it is life eternal to know the Father and the Son, Joh. 17. 3. And becauſe we do thoſe things that are pleaſing in his ſight, what-ever we ask we receive, 1 Joh. 3. 22.

§. 30. M. S. By Chriſts imputed ſuffering we are but where we were: For the Law to have nothing againſt us will not juſtifie us, unleſs it have ſomething for us.

An. This great queſtion needeth diſtincter handling: Adam's Law doth not juſtifie us, but condemn us, nor Moſes's neither; nor any but the Law of Grace. Your foundation is unſound. 2. The imputing of Chriſt's Suffering, is not Gods Language, but your own, and may be well or ill underſtood. 3. If the Law have nothing againſt us, it hath no Sin of Omiſſion againſt us: Therefore not our omiſſion of Love and Obedience. And then we are reputed ſuch as had perfect Love and Obedience. 4. But indeed it is not ſo. By the deeds of the Law no Fleſh can be juſtified: The Law ſtill hath this againſt us, that we have ſinned; which he that denieth is called a Lyar, 1 Joh. 1. The Reatus Culpae in ſe, or the Reality of this, that we have ſinned, is impoſſible to be done away. But the Reatus poenae, & culpae ut ad poenam is done away: But not by the Law, but by the Redeemer and new Covenant. The Law doth not ſay, We are ſinleſs, or deſervers of life: But the Goſpel ſaith, We are pardoned, and adopted, and ſanctified, through Chriſt's perfect meritorious Righteouſneſs.

§. 31. M. S. Elſe Sin and Puniſhment ſhould be the cauſe of life: for Sin is the cauſe of Suffering, and that of Pardon.

An. This is the groſſeſt paſſage in this Book; A palpable fallacy. You may as well ſay that Lazarus's dying and being buried were the cauſes of his reviving; becauſe antecedent evils from which he was revived: Or that the Jews killing Chriſt were the cauſes of his Reſurrection; Or that Peter's cutting off Malchus Ear was the cauſe that Chriſt cured him; Or that Peter's denying Chriſt was the cauſe that Chriſt pardoned him. Sin deſerveth Puniſhment; but Puniſhment as ſuch deſerveth not Pardon or Life: They in Hell deſerve not Heaven. If God had threatened but a temporal Puniſhment; As a years ſickneſs, &c. this had not deſerved the following impunity, or peace, but only interrupted peace, the Sin deſerving this and no more. A Malefactor's ſcourging deſerveth not p. 14his after peace. And Chriſt's Suffering merited not our Pardon as reputed our ſuffering, nor meerly as ſuffering; For had we ſuffered, we had not been pardoned. But the voluntary Suffering of ſo glorious and innocent a Perſon, to demonstrate Juſtice, deſerved our impunity and more, becauſe God would have it ſo, and it was a means moſt apt for this excellent end, to ſave loſt man, and to vindicate and glorifie the Wiſdom, Truth and Juſtice of the Univerſal King, and to demonſtrate the Goodneſs and Love of our great Benefactor. But ſufferings as ſuch do mer… nothing; even Chriſts own Sufferings merit but as they are the fruits of Obedience and voluntary conſent, on the foreſaid accounts; much leſs do the ſufferings of the Sinner merit: For he is ſuppoſed involuntary in them; and it is God the Judge that is the Author of them as ſuch.

§. 32. M. S. Elſe the Law ſhould be laid by, and life given without it.

An. The root of all your Error is, That God giveth us life by the Law of Innocency or Works, and that we are juſtified by that Law… which is not true. God laid none of it by; but man by ſin made the promiſſory part (which gave life on condition of perfect Obedience and Innocency) to be impoſſible, or null: It ceaſed ceſſante capacitate ſubditorum, by mans mutation, and not by Gods: But the preceptive part remaineth ſtill, as far as it reacheth materially the ſtate of Sinners. But man having made it impoſſible to be juſtified by the deeds of the Law, God made us a new Law or Covenant, according to which he judgeth Sinners, and by which he firſt giveth Righteouſneſs, and then according to it ſentenceth men as Righteous.

§. 33. M. S. Juſtification of the Posterity of Adam ſhould have been the ſame for ſubstance as of Believers by Chriſt. Adam's one Act ſhould have confirmed all his Poſterity in him as a publick Perſon: The Covenant of Works and of Grace agree in juſtifying by imputed Righteouſneſs: but out of a Head by Generation, the other by a divine Perſon.]

An. This is preſumptuous adding to Gods Word, in the very ſubſtance of the Covenants; yea and a flat contradiction of it 1. What Scripture telleth us, That all Adam's Poſterity ſhould have been confirmed in immutable Holineſs, if he had obeyed?

2. What Scripture ſaith, That one Act ſhould have done this?

3. What Scripture ſaith, That his Righteouſneſs ſhould have been imputed to all his Poſterity? and they all accounted to have fulfilled the Law in him? The Scripture tells us nothing of Gods purpoſe to make ſo ſuddain a change of his Law, as if he made it but for one man, yea for o… Act, and then would make another to Rule the World by ever after: The Law ſaid (in ſenſe) [Obey perfectly and live; Sin and die]. Now if the Condition had been performed by one Act, or one man, for all the World that ever ſhould come of him to the laſt, and they all be born in the fixed poſſeſſion of the Reward, then the Law which giveth that Reward ſtill but conditionally hath no more place. As in Hell, God doth not ſay to the damned, Obey and live, ſo neither doth he ſay to them in immutable Glory, I give you immutable Glory if you will obey. The means ceaſe ſo far as the end is either attained, or deſperately lost. He that ſaith, Run well, and you ſhall have the prize: Fight well, and you ſhall be crowned; Overcome, and I will give you a Kingdom; will not ſay the ſame to them, when after running, fighting, overcoming, they have received the Prize, the Crown, the Kingdom; (though poſſibly they may have the continuance on condition ſtill if that continuance was not alſo promiſed on the firſt condition alone.) So that you feign Gods Law to be incredibly mutable, if God ſaid by it to Adam, Obey in one Act (o… p. 15obey thy ſelf) and thou and all thy Poſterity for that ſhall have the Reward: For then he can never be ſuppoſed to ſay the ſame again to Adam, or to any man: And yet you think you ſtand ſo much for the …mmutability of that Law, as that we muſt all be juſtified by it to the …nd.

Nay it ſeemeth that after one Act of Obedience, all the World ſhould have been under no Covenant any more; or no promiſſory conditional Law, but only fixed by neceſſitating Light and Love, as thoſe in Glory …re: For when this Condition was fully performed, this Law or Covenant as conditional muſt needs ceaſe: And you imagine not, I ſuppoſe (at▪ leaſt mention not) any other conditional Covenant that ſhould …ucceed it. And neceſſitation is not a Moral Law, ſuited to ſuch as you call cauſe conſilio in this life. You would make all the World after one …ct, to be if not lawleſs, yet Comprehenſors and not Viators; Profeſſors of life eternal, and not ſeekers, in a life of trial.

But I find not but that all Adam's Poſterity ſhould have been born and …ived under the ſame Law that he was made under: And all of them …hould ſtill have heard, [Obey and live, or Sin and die]. And if Adam …ad obeyed till his tranſlation to Glory, or confirmation in the Reward, I find not in Scripture any Promiſe that this ſhould have been im…uted to his Poſterity, as the full performance of the Condition of their Life or confirmed Happineſs: but that ſtill their own ſinning would have been a poſſible thing, and death would have been the wages of their Sin.

You ſeem not to ſet Adam's Merits and imputed Righteouſneſs any …igher than Chriſt's. And I am too ſure that the juſtified Members of Chriſt do ſin, and muſt aſk daily pardon; And whether or not they be confirmed againſt total Apoſtaſie, I am ſure few if any of them are confirmed againſt the poſſibility, or exiſtence, or futurity of Sin, And if you ſay that Adam's Poſterity, though confirmed, ſhould have ſinned too, but ſhould have been pardoned as we are; It would be another preſumptuous addition and contradiction of Scripture, to aſſert Pardon without a Saviour and a pardoning Covenant.

3. Adam's Obedience would have juſtified his next iſſue from this falſe Accuſation, [You are born of a ſinful Parent, or not of a righteous Parent]. But it would have juſtified no man againſt this Accuſation, [You are perſonally a Sinner, or have not perſonally loved God and obeyed him]. Therefore it would have juſtified any man againſt this Charge, [You are to be condemned for Adam's ſin]. But it would have juſtified no man againſt theſe Charges, [You are to be condemned for your own perſonal Sin; or, you have no right to Glory by Gods Promiſe to the adult, which maketh their perſonal Obedience the Condition].

4. And (though I cannot again here have time to deal with Confounders, who think that Imputation or Juſtification are words which have but one ſenſe,) I muſt ſay that even ſo, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is not ſo imputed to any man, as to be to him in ſtead of his perſonal Obedience to the Law or Covenant of Grace which he is under: But it will juſtifie any. Believer from theſe Accuſations, [You muſt be caſt into Hell for breaking the Law of Innocency, or you muſt be ſhut out of Heaven, becauſe you deſerved it not by perfect Obedience; or you have no perfect or ſufficient Saviour; or you are ſuch as God cannot pardon without wrong to his Truth▪ Wiſdom or Justice.] It will juſtifie no man from any of theſe Charges, [You are Sinners: you deſerve condemnation by the firſt Law: you are Impenitent, or Unbelievers, or Hyp…crites; or have not performed the conditions p. 16of life in the Law of Grace.] The two firſt we muſt confeſs, and not juſtifie our ſelves by a denial: And againſt the laſt we muſt be juſtified by our own Repentance, Faith and ſincere Obedience. He that will ſay to the Accuſer, that chargeth him with final Infidelity, Impenitency or Unholineſs; I am juſtified by the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, will but add to his ſin.

5. There are all theſe differences between our Juſtification according to the firſt Law (had we been capable of it) and that which we now have. 1. One would have been by God as Creator and Legiſlator to the Innocent: The other by Chriſt as Redeemer and Legiſlator to the ſinful World. 2. One would have been for perſonal, perfect, perſevering Obedience: The other for Chriſt's Merits, as purchaſing a free Pardon & Grace to penitent Believers, and upon our own Faith and Repentance, as the Conditions of the new Covenant. 3. One would have been without pardon; and the other chiefly or much by pardon: In one, if our Publick Root had perfectly obeyed, we muſt alſo have perfectly obeyed, or die. In the other, becauſe our Publick Root did perfectly obey, Faith and ſinceere Obedience to the end, is all that is required of us to ou… Glory. 4. In one the perſonal matter of worthineſs or merit, muſt have been all that perfection which God in juſtice could require of man: In the other, it is only, The acceptance of a free Gift, according to its nature and uſe, and after the thankful uſe and improvement of it: with other ſuch differences.

§. 34. M. S. What Chriſt did as ſurety is imputed to us; but not his Suretiſhip, or being a publick Perſon.]

Anſ. This is true, if you underſtand Imputation in Scripture ſenſe, or ſoundly, and not in their ſenſe who preſumptuouſly ſay, That God reputeth us to have done all by Chriſt, which he did for us in his Obedience to the Law.

§. 35. M. S. Chriſt did not all that he did as Surety; but only that which anſwered the Law.]

An. I ſuppoſe you mean, that which the Law requireth of us: But the word [Surety] is ambiguous, and after here explained, and whether you underſtood it ſano ſenſu I know not. He did all that he did as the Mediator and Sponſor, for mans Redemption: And we are pardoned and juſtified by the merit of all his own Covenant-keeping with the Father; even of ſuch acts as the Law required not of us: And ſome which the Law required of many, he did not, becauſe it required them not of him.

§. 36. M. S. The Law ſaid not, That Chriſt must be a holy Husband or Father, &c. The Imputation of one Act of Chriſt's Obedience is ſufficient (to our Juſtification and Merit of life) though it need not be curiouſly ſet in this or that part of his life.]

§. Still more preſumption; 1. Where ſaith the Scripture ſo? 2. You muſt not aſſert abſurdities or preſumptions, and then think to put off the detection of them, by calling it curious? If this be true, doubtleſs it was Chriſts first act of Obedience which merited Glory for us. And ſo it is that firſt only that muſt be imputed to us, to that end. And who ever thought ſo before you? The Fryars have ſome of them ſaid, That minima guttula ſanguinis Chriſti, One drop of his blood was enough to redeem all the World: And our Divines ſay, Why then was the reſt ſhed? So I aſk you, 1. Why did Chriſt do all the reſt of his Obedience after the firſt Act? Hath none of it the ſame end and uſe? 2. How ſhall we be ſure that a Sinner muſt not plead or truſt to any of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, p. 17but the firſt act for his Juſtification and Reward? or muſt he truſt for it to that which was never by Chriſt intended for it? 3. This is contrary to the Scripture, which layeth our Juſtification on his whole Righteouſneſs as meritorious, and on his Obedience to the Death, and on his riſing again, and on other parts firſt, Rom. 4. 24. & 5. throughout, &c. 4. Sure they that are ſo curious, as to tell us which phyſical act of Faith juſtifieth (in ſpecie & numero) (for ſome ſay only the firſt inſtantaneous act doth juſtifie,) will not think it curioſity to enquire which one Act of Christs Obedience juſtifieth us? when according to your Doctrine, it is evident that it muſt be the firſt: And they that ſay, It is Juſtification by Works, to be juſtified by any act of Faith in ſpecie, beſides the recumbency on his Righteouſneſs to be imputed to us, or by any numero beſides the firſt, will likely ſay that it is Juſtification by another Righteouſneſs than that which the Scripture ſaith is imputed to us, to be juſtified by the Imputation of any but the firſt Act of Chriſt's Obedience. Or elſe that (if all be imputed) we have a redundancy of Righteouſneſs, and deſerve many Heavens, or one oftener than needs. But when men have received ſome unſound Principles, all things muſt be forced to comply with them.

§. 37. M. S. Towards the end, the M. S. ſummeth up my Aſſertions, and ſetteth down ſome as contrary to them. In reckoning up mine, he ſheweth candor and ingenuity, and a good memory, having not the Book at hand: But I muſt advertiſe his Readers, 1. That he taketh all from my Aphoriſms, the firſt Book I wrote, in my youth, when my Conceptions of theſe things were leſs digeſted; wherefore I have above twenty years ago retracted that Book, till I had leiſure to correct it, and have ſince more fully opened my judgment in my Confeſſion, and in my Diſput. of Juſtification and other Writings, and moſt fully in my Methodus Theologiae unpubliſhed. 2. That he over-looketh my aſſerting our Adoption to be by the Merits of Chriſt's Active Obedience, yea and our Juſtification too, as well as by his Paſſive. 3. That reciting my words, that it is by Gods Will in the form of his Donation or Covenant that Faith hath that uſe to Juſtification which is neareſt it, viz. the formal Reaſon of a Condition, he leaveth out my other aſſertion, that Faiths material diſpoſition or aptitude to this form or office, is the very nature of it, as fitted to that uſe about its Object, Chriſt, which Gods deſign and our caſe required.

His Aſſertions as againſt me are as followeth.

§. 28. M. S. 1. There is no way to Life but by Doing: It is not enough that the Law be not diſhonoured, but it muſt be glorified.

An. Doing is a word of doubtful ſenſe: It's one thing to Do all that the Law of Innocency required; and another thing to do all that the Law of Grace maketh neceſſary to life: It's one thing to Do all our ſelves, and another thing for a Mediator to merit Pardon and Life (to be given conditionally by a new Covenant) by Doing all in kind (and much more than all that we ſhould have done) for us (though not in our perſons). The way to Life now hath many parts, 1. Chriſt's perfect, habitual, active and paſſive Righteouſneſs, (fulfilling the Law of Innocency, and the Law of Moſes, and the peculiar Law of the Mediator,) to merit Pardon, Spirit, Adoption and Glory to be given by the New Covenant on its terms. 2. The ſaid New Covenant as the donative Inſtrument and Law of Life, and Pardon, and Adoption by it. 3. Our doing or performing the Conditions of the New Covenant by Grace. But our perſonal Doing all according to the Law of Innocency p. 18really or reputatively, to be juſtified by that Law, is none of the way of Life, which you think the only way. (And I hope we ſhall both meet there).

§. 39. M. S. It's clear as the light of the Sun, that their fundamental diſtinction is abſurd, to make ſinning and ſuffering equivalent to doing: becauſe he that hath born the utmoſt penalty, hath done no more towards living, than he that never ſinned or ſuffered: elſe Adam in Innocency ſhould have been ſentenced worthy of life. If a Servant inſtead of his Service ſteal, and reſtore it, he meriteth not his wages, &c.]

An. 1. It's certain that you miſtake and wrong us: I never put ſinning among the things that are equivalent to doing or meriting: Of this before. 2. I doubt you noted not ſufficiently that no Creature can merit commutatively as a Proprietor of God, as a Servant doth his wages; nor can have any thing of God but what (in reſpect of ſuch merit and the value of the thing) is an abſolute free Gift: free as to commutation: And that all Gods Laws of Life, are but a preſcription of the wiſe Order in which he will give his free benefits; As a Father will give Lands to the Son that will behave himſelf decently and thankfully, and not to the contemptuous Rebel: So that as to commutation no Man or Angel hath other merit, than not to commerit the contrary (perdition): God is never the better for our Doing. If you dream of meriting commutatively from a Proprietor by work for wages, I can ſoon tell you what we ſet up inſtead of ſuch merit: I hope you had no ſuch thoughts, but want of due diſtinguiſhing. But as to Doing and Merit in reſpect to Paternal Juſtice, that which I ſet inſtead of fulfilling the firſt Law is a… aforeſaid, (not ſinning and ſuffering, but) 1. Chriſt's Satisfaction, and the Merit of his compleat Righteouſneſs. 2. The Gift of Pardon and Life by a new conditional Covenant merited and made by him. 3. Actual Pardon of all ſin thereby. 4. Actual Adoption. 5. Our fulfilling the Condition of that Covenant, that theſe may be ours.

And thus the Law was diſhonoured by our Sin, but is glorified by Christs Obedience and Satisfaction; And Goſpel-Juſtice, but ſpecially Mercy, glorified in our perſonal Obedience to the Goſpel: without ſuch Doing indeed (Chriſt's as Principal in fulfilling the Law in the Perſon of a Mediator, and ours as ſubordinate in obeying the Goſpel,) there is no Glorification. And I think this is plain truth.

But in your inſtance of a Servant deſerving his wages, you ſeem to look at Commutative Justice, when we have to do only with governing (Paternal) Justice: And you ſhould have remembred that if the Servant do not his Work, in order of governing Justice, it is his crime: And if he have no fault, he hath no fault of Omiſsion: And he that hath no Sin of Omiſsion hath done all his Duty, and ſo deſerved the Reward. As for Adam. 1. In the firſt inſtant of his life he was bound to no preſent Duty, before he could do a moral Act. 2. But afterward I think he merited in tantum & pro tempore; and had not the Condition of the Promiſe been of further extent than one act, he had merited life: But a Reward for a years Duty is not merited by an hours.

§. 40. M. S. There is a medium between juſt and unjuſt: He was nonjuſtus; He was not actually just, though habitually: He had done nothing for which the Law could juſtifie him: elſe why did he not live for ever?

An. 1. Habitual holineſs fits a Soul for Glory, where no more is due (as if one die immediately.) And ſo it would have done Adam, had God tranſlated him inſtantly, and made him no Law of actual Duty. 2. But afterward that Adam in Innocency did that for which p. 19the Law would juſtifie him in tantum, for that time, He fulfilled all the Law for ſo long: elſe he had ſinned by Omiſſion. 3. But that Law giving life eternal only to Obedience to the end of his time of trial, he merited not that life by initial Obedience. This was initial imperfect Righteouſneſs, wanting perſeverance; but not a medium between Juſt and Unjuſt, except as Juſt ſignifieth the merit of Life by perſevering Righteouſneſs to the laſt: And ſo I never denied but in a diſobliged Subject there is a medium: Adam was not bound to do a years work the firſt hour; and ſo was neither juſt nor privatively unjuſt as to the future years work: but as to what he was preſently obliged to, he was either Righteous or a Sinner. Here you come ſhort of neceſſary accurateneſs. Perſeverance is a part of our Condition of Glorification: Yet he that is not dead is juſt, if he be a Believer and obedient: And if God now call him by death, he ſhall be glorified: But he hath not now done all that is to be done till his death, if he live longer: So that his Right to the preſent poſſeſſion of Glory before death is not juſtifiable, but his Right in caſe he now die, is.

§. 41. M. S. Faith, foreign credere cannot be put in exchange for fac hoc; and therefore juſtified only as it relateth to him who hath ſuffered and done for all that will receive him.

An. 1. Exchange is an ambiguous word: Here is no proper exchange. Faith is not a fulfilling of the Law of Innocency, nor ſo reputed by God: Chriſt did both ſatisfie for our not-fulfilling it, and alſo by that and by fulfilling it himſelf (not in our perſons, but his own) did merit the free Gift of Life to us to be ours, upon new Covenant terms, and Faith and Repentance are the Conditions of that New Covenant, and ſo are that Duty which is laid on our ſelves to do inſtead of perfect Obedience, ſuppoſing Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merits, which are inſtead of it quoad precium or principally, as our ſaid acts are inſtead of it as to what is neceſſary in our ſelves: And the Apoſtle who ſo oft ſaith, Faith is imputed to us for Righteouſneſs, doth neither by Faith, mean Chriſt, nor mean that Faith is imputed as a fulfilling the Law of Works: But that having no ſuch merit of our own, (or Righteouſneſs) our believing in him that hath ſatisfied and merited for us, is reckoned to us inſtead of a Righteouſneſs or Merit, as being all that now is neceſſary to our Justification in our ſelves, (our perſevering Obedience being afterward neceſſary to our Glory.)

2. No doubt Faith relateth to Chriſt, and here connoteth him as its Object: It were not Chriſtian Faith elſe: But it is alſo related to the New Covenant as its Condition, and in that form hath its place to our Juſtification, which cannot be denied: Therefore you untruly ſay, [Only as relating to Christ,] and your words confute your ſelf: You ſay, [Who hath ſuffered and done for all that will receive him.] You ſpeak either of ſecret Decree (and that giveth no Right) or of Covenant Donation: And to ſay, He and his benefits are given in Covenant to all that will receive him,] is all one as to ſay, The Covenant giveth them on condition that we receive him]: which is true.

§. 42. M. S. 5. It is impoſſible that the terms of the Covenant of Grace can be any other than they are: becauſe nothing but receiving him can make him mine.]

An. 1. That proveth not that Faith is not the Condition, but that it needs muſt be ſo. 2. It is impoſſible, now the Covenant is ſo made, viz. ex neceſſitate existentiae: But that God could have made it no otherwiſe, is not a thing for man to ſay. 3. Confound not paſsive Reception with p. 20active moral Reception: Juſtificari is paſſively to receive Juſtification; and to be firſt related to Chriſt as mine, or to be one that he is given to, is paſſively to receive Chriſt: Active moral receiving is the Wills conſenting thus to have him on all his terms, and is the means of the other: It is this and not the other that is Faith: And could not God poſſibly have made Chriſt ours, by any alteration of the terms: ſure they that confine Faith to the receiving of Chriſts imputable Righteouſneſs, will grant that God could poſſibly have put one act more of Faith into the Condition, or on… act of Gratitude, Deſire, Love or Repentance? And Dr. Twiſſe thinks he could have given a man a Right to Life without Chriſt's Satisfaction, and to Chriſt without Faith, and that ſo he doth to Infants.

§. 43. M. S. There is no Righteouſneſs in point of Juſtification, but only in conformity to the Rule, Do this: that only brings a man under the approving Will of God.

An. 1. But what is the Do this that you mean? Adam's Law ſaid, Do this and live: Moſes Law ſaid, Do this and live: The Law given to Chriſt ſaid, Do and ſuffer this, and I will give thee Power over all Fleſh, to give eternal life to as many as I give thee, and believe]. The Law of Chriſt to Sinners ſaith, Do this and live: This is the work of God that ye believe, &c. But all theſe Doings are different, for all that; It's an unknown Faith or Repentance which is no Act or Duty. 2. There is no Righteouſneſs but the conformity to the Rule of Righteouſneſs, if you ſpeak only of that Righteouſneſs which is of that ſpecies: But there is another ſort. He that is juſtifiable is juſt ſo far. If Satan ſay, Thou art conde… nandus, to be damned to Hell, and ſhut out of Heaven, for breaking the Law of Works: I muſt deny it: not by ſaying, I did not break it, but keep it by another, or I did not deſerve damnation; but by alledging, He that is pardoned, is not to ſuffer any pain of ſenſe or loſs: I am pardoned by the New covenant, through the Merit of the Satisfaction and perfect Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. Adam's Law will not juſtifie you; nor Moſes's Law neither: The Law requireth perſonal perfect Obedience: It never ſaid, [Thou or another for thee ſhalt obey:] It knoweth no Surety: To give a Surety, and to accept his ſuretiſhip, is the act of the Law. Giver as above his Law, not fulfilling that Law, but ſecuring the ends of Government (and of it) by another way: To pardon a Sin and Penalty is not to fulfil the Law that threatened it, but to diſpenſe with it; which Juſtice can do upon a valuable conſideration, ſecuring the ends of Government: And Veracity is not impeached by it. For 1. The ſenſe of ſilius mortis is, Death ſhall be thy due; and ſo it was. 2. And death was actually inflicted on man himſelf, though not all that which he deſerved. If the Law of Innocency juſtifie you, you need no Redeemer, you need no Pardon, you need no New Covenant to juſtifie you, nor can it do it.

3. We are juſtified by Doing, though not by our fulfilling the Law of Works, by our ſelves or another. We are juſtified by two ſort… of Doing: Principally by the Merit of Chriſt's perfect Righteouſneſs; and ſubordinately by our fulfilling the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace, (which Baptiſm celebrateth.)

4. Gods Will approveth of all that is good, ſo far as it is good: It approveth of habitual Holineſs in Adam, and would have done in his Infants had he ſtood; and doth ſo in all Chriſtians now: And I will believe that Chriſt, before he actually obeyed, was under▪ Gods approving Will. But not as one that had merited by Obedience: For God doth not p. 21ſuppoſe any to do that which they do not, nor oblige them to do to-morrows work to-day.

§. 44. M. S. The iſſue in a word is, 1. Suffering for Sin is not doing, nor equivalent in point of Juſtification, 2. Nor can God, having ſatisfaction for what was done croſs to his Law, lay aſide that in order to the conveying of Life, and ſubſtitute believing inſtead of it. Therefore Faith juſtifieth ratione objecti only. Now we [Do] in another, Chriſt, inſtead of doing in our own perſons.

An. I doubt this is another Goſpel than the Apoſtles delivered us; though I hope that practically we meet in one. 1. To the firſt I anſwer, It's true; but you do ill to intimate that we think otherwiſe. Suffering by the Sinner never ſatisfieth, becauſe it muſt be everlaſting: Suffering by Chriſt ſatisfieth not meerly as ſuffering, but as the voluntary ſuffering of God-Man, aptly glorifying Juſtice and Love, and ſecuring the ends of Government. This Satisfaction is not equivalent to doing in Juſtification: For Doing all required, would have juſtified us againſt this Charge, [Thou art a Sinner, by Omiſſion and Commiſſion, and thou hast deſerved Death, and hast not deſerved Life, according to the Law of Works.] Againſt this Charge, I look for no Juſtification, but confeſs it is all true. But Chriſt's Satisfaction juſtifieth us againſt this Charge, [God muſt damn thee (by paine of loſs and ſenſe) or elſe he is not juſt, becauſe thou haſt deſerved it.] And Chriſt's perfect Righteouſneſs alſo juſtifieth us againſt this Charge, [God must damn thee and deny thee life, becauſe thou didſt not merit it by perfect Obedience]. The Juſtifier ſays, No: becauſe Chriſt's Merit in Doing and Suffering hath glorified the Law and Juſtice of God inſtead of my Merit, and hath procured us Pardon and Life given by the New Covenant.

2. To the ſecond I anſwer, 1. God did not lay aſide his firſt Covenant, but man by ſin did lay it aſide, by making the Condition impoſſible. 2. You overturn the Goſpel too much, by thinking that the Law is not laid aſide as a Covenant or Promiſe, (though I grant that the Precept as a Rule of Life continues:) To ſay that the ſenſe of Adam's Law was, [Thou or another (Chriſt) for thee, ſhalt obey.] And that we are juſtified by that Law, is to confound Law and Goſpel, and make a Goſpel of that Law, and make the Covenant of Works not to condemn us; or both to condemn and juſtifie, and to feign man to live and be judged by the Covenant that is ceaſed. God ſaith now to no man living, [Be innocent, and ſo merit life, that thou maiſt live.] And God doth not repute us innocent at all.

3. To the third I anſwer, It is notoriouſly untrue, that Faith juſtifieth only ratione objecti, unleſs you mean that efficiently it juſtifieth not at all, which is true. For we are juſtified by it alſo ratione foederis, becauſe that which is materially Faith in Chriſt (a juſtifying Saviour) and ſo connoteth its Object as the meritorious Cauſe of the free Gift and Pardon, is (by reaſon of this aptitude) made the Condition of that New Covenant or Gift, which is its neareſt intereſt or reaſon of our being juſtified by it. And it is the Law of Grace by which we muſt be judged and juſtified. And at that Bar, the queſtion which Life or Death dependeth on, will be (ſuppoſing Chriſt's Merits) whether we are penitent Believers, or impenitent Unbelievers, and ſo have part in Chriſt or not: And if Satan accuſe us as being impenitent Unbelievers, and the queſtion be whether we have true Faith or not? my Opinion is, that we cannot be herein juſtified by pleading the Object, when the Act is queſtioned, and ſaying, That Chriſt fulfilled that Law: unleſs you could prove that p. 22he juſtifieth impenitent Infidels, and (as Saltmarſh ſaid) repented and believed for us.

But the grand Caſe remaineth, Whether we are justified by the Law of Innocency, by fulfilling it, and meriting in another, without any ſort of doing of our own by our ſelves?

Mr. Wotton, Mr. Gataker, and abundance more, have long ago ſaid much to confute your Error, beſides Mr. Bradſhaw, whom you name; But I add, I. I have before proved that by the deeds or ſentence of the Law of Adam or Moſes, no man can be juſtified: 1. He that hath ſinned againſt it cannot be juſtified as not having ſinned: For factum infectum fieri is impoſſible to God himſelf. 2. The Law that condemneth us doth not juſtifie us. 3. What Paul, Rom. 3. & 4. frequently ſaith againſt Juſtification by the Law of Moſes will hold here a fortiori: And Chriſt keeping Moſes Law (as far as he was capable of Obligation) that alſo would elſe have been imputed, and ſo we ſhould have been juſtified by that Law alſo; which the Scripture copiouſly denieth. He that ſaith, He hath no ſin, deceiveth himſelf, and is a lyar, and the truth is not in him. And the Law of Adam juſtifieth no man that hath ſin.

II. We did not fulfil it and merit in Chriſt: But Chriſt did in the Perſon of a Mediator, voluntarily undertaking it, on his Fathers terms, and not as our Inſtrument, or in our Perſons. I have elſe-where given abundance of Arguments againſt that, which I muſt not here repeat. This Author took notice of my Objection, that he that is reputed perfectly Innocent and Obedient, is uncapable of Pardon, and needeth no ſatisfaction, or remitting, or rewarding Covenant, beſides that which he kept, but anſwereth it not. This ſubverteth the Goſpel and Religion. Quer. If there be no Reward nor Life but of Juſtice, and no Reward but for Chriſt's Merits, and all Believers equally merited in Chriſt, as fulfilling all the Law; 1. Whence cometh the inequality of Grace and Glory? 2. How come any Believers to be left long under ſins and weakneſs of Grace, and temporal puniſhments?

III. The Merits of Chriſt have procured us the New Covenant (ſealed in Baptiſm) by which we have a new Rule offiicii & judicii, (for ſuch is every Law) Chriſt is not the only Subject of God: He made us not lawleſs or Rebels. God ſtill ruleth the Church by a Law or Covenant: This is the Law or Covenant of Grace: Deny this Covenant, and you deny the Goſpel: This Covenant or Law obligeth us to Duty: And it promiſeth and giveth Pardon and Life in and with Chriſt: This Covenant hath Conditions; various conditions of various Benefits; Our firſt true conſent (which Baptiſm celebrateth) that is, our firſt believing and repenting is the condition of our firſt Union with Chriſt, and our Pardon, and Adoption, and the Spirit. Our ſincere Love and Obedience to the end, and over-coming, is the further condition of our final Juſtification at Judgment, and our Glory. This Covenant we are now under, and by this we muſt be finally judged, juſtified, or condemned. No man ſhall be ſaved, unleſs (if at age) he perſonally perform the conditions of this Covenant: And every one ſhall be ſaved that doth. Faith, Repentance, Love to our Redeemer, Gratitude, Prayer, ſincere Obedience, are all ſuch Doing, as by this Covenant are made the neceſſary means of Glory: But not ſuch Doing as Paul oppoſeth to the Jews, as maketh the Reward not of Grace, but of Debt. The Author of this Law is juſt: His Juſtice will give to the performers of the Condition all that he hath promiſed.

p. 23The Scripture oft uſeth all theſe Titles; 1. That of Reward, as being the ſtate of the benefits retributed. 2. That of Juſtice, as being the principle of Reward. 3. That of Works, as being the matter rewarded; even our perſonal Works wrought by Grace, and not only thoſe which Chriſt did. 4. That of worthineſs or merit, as being the relation of the Work and Perſon to the Reward. 5. That of Righteouſneſs, as being the ſtate of the Perſon performing theſe Works, as pronounced by the New Covenant. If I prove not all theſe by expreſs Scripture, believe your new Goſpel.

I. It is Reward, Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God, muſt believe that God is, and that he is the Rewarder of them that diligently ſeek him. It's he ſecond Article of Faith, Prov. 13. 13. Mat. 6. 4. Himſelf ſhall Reward thee openly, and verſ. 6. 18. Prov. 25. 22. Mat. 16. 27. Then ſhall …e reward every man according to his Works; even Chriſt when he cometh …n Glory with his Angels: If you ſay, He meaneth his Works done by Chriſt, read Mat. 25. and believe it if you can. So Rev. 22. 12. 2 Joh. 8. Heb. 11. 26. Col. 3. 24. Ye ſhall receive the Reward of the Inhe…itance. Col. 2. 18. 1 Cor. 9. 17, 18. 1 Cor. 3. 8, 14. Luke 6. 35. Mat. …. 12, 46. & 10. 41, 42. Prov. 11. 18. Pſal. 19. 11. & 58. 11. Heb. 10. …5.

II. Goſpel paternal Juſtice rewardeth men (ſuppoſing Chriſt's Merits) … Tim. 4. 8. A Crown of Righteouſneſs, which the Lord the righteous Judge ſhall give me, and not to me only, but to all them that love his appearing. Rom. 2. 5. The righteous Judgment of God, who ſhall give to every man according to his Works. To them that by patient continuance in well-doing, &c. 2 Theſſ. 1. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Pſal. 67. 4. & 46. 10. Pſal. 11. 7. Gen. 18. 23, 24, &c. And multitudes of other places, Heb. 6. 10. God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love. 1 Joh. 1. 9. If we confeſs our ſins, he is faithful and juſt to forgive our ſins, &c. Iſa. 45. 22.

III. The thing rewarded is called Works done by man (not legally …uſtifiable, but evangelically) Mat. 16. 27. Rev. 2. 26. Rev. 14. 13. & 20. 12, 13. Jam. 2. 21, 24, 25, 26. Rev. 2. 2, 9, 13, 19. & 3. 1, 2, 8, 15. Heb. 6. 10. Rev. 22. 12. 1 Cor. 15. laſt. And it's called Doing, 2 Theſſ. 3. 13. and Gal. 6. 9. Rom. 2. 7. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Heb. 10. 36. Mat. 25. 21, …3. & 12. 50. & 7. 22, 23. & 6. 1, 2. Luke 8. 21. Joh. 13. 17. Col. 3. 23, 24. Heb. 13. 21. Rev. 22. 14. And keeping his Word or Commandments, 1 Joh. 3. 22. and 1 Joh. 2. 3. and Joh. 15. 10. & 14, 15, 16. Dan. 9. 4. Eccleſ. 12. 13. Prov. 4. 4. Exod. 20. 6. Deut. 5. 29. Ezez. 18. 21, &c. And Obeying, Heb. 5. 9. He is the Author of eternal Salvation to all them that obey him. Acts 5. 22. Rom. 6. 16. Obedience unto Righteouſneſs, &c.

IV. The Relative aptitude of the Work for the Reward is called Wor…hineſs, or Merit, and the performer Worthy (evangelically not legally). And foreign primarily ſignifieth that which preponderateth in the ballance; but cannot note here any worth or merit by commutation, but that aptitude which reſulteth from the goodneſs of the action as related to the Promiſe, Rev. 3. 4. A few—which have not defiled their Garments, and they ſhall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 2 Theſſ. 1. 5, 6. The righteous Judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you ſuffer. Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompenſe—to you that are troubled, reſt with us—. 11. That God would count you worthy of this calling. Luke 20. 35. They which be counted worthy to obtain that World—. 21, 36. That ye may be accounted worthy p. 24to eſcape—and ſtand before the Son of Man. So Eph. 4. 1. Col. 1. 10. 1 Theſſ. 2. 12. Mat. 10. 37, 38.

V. The title of Relation given to the Works and Perſons evangelically is Righteouſneſs, or Juſtice, 1 Joh. 3. 7. He that doth Righteouſneſs is righteous. Matth. 25. 46. The righteous into life eternal: 21. Well done good and faithful Servant; v. 35. For I was hungred, and ye, &c. Mat. 13. 43. Mat. 10. 41. Ezek. 18. 20, 24. & 33. 12, 13, 18. Rom. 6. 16. & 8. 10. 1 Cor. 15. 21. Eph. 5. 9. & 6. 14. 2 Tim. 4. 8. Heb. 11. 33. 2 Cor. 9. 9. And the godly are called Righteous, in relation to their Hearts and Doings near an hundred times (if not much more) in Scripture, though but in ſubordination to Chriſt's meritorious Righteouſneſs, and but ſecund… quid, and not ſimpliciter.

See the Texts further recited in my Confeſſion of Faith.

And now he that (conſidering all this) believes, 1. That Chriſt is no King, 2. Or we no Subjects, 3. Or that he hath no Law of Grace or Covenant, which we are under, 4. Or that this Law, or Covenant, will not juſtifie them that perform that Condition, (from legal-executive damnation, by giving them Pardon, and Right to Life, for the Merits of Chriſt): 5. And that Faith, Repentance, and perſevering holy Obedience, will not materially juſtifie any man that hath the… from the charge of having no part in Chriſt, becauſe of Infidelity, Impenitency, Unholineſs or Apoſtacy; 6. Or that he that performeth the Goſpel-Conditions ſhall not be judged rewardable, or evangelically worthy of the promiſed Reward; 7. Or that the ſame thing which as Good and a Benefit is a Gift abſolutely free againſt commutative Merit, is not yet quoad ordinem conferendi & recipi…ndi a true Reward. 8. And ſo that we have no Reward for any Works but what Chriſt did in his own Perſon. 9. And that the Judgment-Day will be to try whether Chriſt did his part or not, and ſo to judge him, and not to try whether we have part in him, and did our parts or not, by repenting, believing, loving, obeying and overcoming, and ſo to juſtifie us, primarily by his Merits and Covenant, and ſubordinately by our performance of the Conditions; And 10. He that believes that inſtead of all this, we our ſelves did by Chriſt as our legal Perſon both keep all the Law of Works from firſt to last, and merit Life, and alſo ſatisfie Gods Juſtice for not keeping the Law, and ſo redeem our ſelves, or ſuffer in Chriſt for our own Sins, and purchaſe Pardon and Salvation for our ſelves: 11. Or that God accounteth us ſo to have done, what we did not: 12. And ſo that it is the Law of Works and Innocency by which we our ſelves are juſtified: 13. And that for meriting in Chriſt we are fixed preſently in the immutable ſtate of eternal life, which is the Reward: 14. And that this is not a Reward to Chriſt only, but to us as Meriters in him; He that can believe all this, with abundance more of the Libertine new Goſpel-Doctrine (commonly called Antinomian) which dependeth on it; doth quite differ from my Faith, who believe that Chriſt ſuffered, ſatisfied, fulfilled the Law, and merited in the Perſon of a free Mediator only; fulfilling all his own mediatorial Law or Covenant, and receiving his Reward, and freely upon theſe Merits, and his Power received, making a Deed of Gift of Himſelf and Life (Pardon, Adoption, Spirit and Glory) to all that truly conſent to his Covenant, and overcoming do perſevere therein, and perform ſincere Obedience to the laſt: by which Law or Covenant he will judge men at laſt, that is, will juſtifie or condemn them: And this ſhort and plain Doctrine of Faith is it, which I am conſtrained by the full and plain teſtimony of the Scriptures to embrace: p. 25And I never yet ſaw any thing againſt it, which is not eaſily confuted, though my life is not like to be long enough, nor am I idle enough, to write againſt all that have written againſt me.

In concluſion, I muſt give notice to the Reader, that there are many great and weighty Points of great difficulty concerning our LOVE to GOD, and the order of it in reſpect to Faith, Repentance, the love of our ſelves and our felicity; and our love to Creatures, &c. which I paſs by in this Treatiſe, as having ſpoken with ſome care of them in my Chriſtian Directory, in the Appendix to the Chap. Of loving God, in Tom. 1. And if that ſeem too intricate to any, as being too long; in brief, I ſuppoſe that the Thomists groſly err in placing beatitude chiefly in the Intellect, and their Reaſons (eſpecially as Medina uſeth them) are very weak; and the Scotiſts are more ſound, who place it in the Will, and thoſe other moſt ſound who place it in the perfection of the whole man actively; but objectively in God: And moſt plainly that very plain judicious School-man Aegidius Romanus Quodlib. 3. Qu. 18. p. 187, 188. who ſaith in ſhort, 1. That God is the final Object ſimply; 2. That the love of God (or velle) is the final act; or beatitude formaliter: 3. That beatitude (or rather the ratio finis) is principally in the Object, and next in the Act: 4. That ſubſerviently or quodam genere the viſio Dei is the Object, and the velle videre Deum the Act. See alſo Aegidius, Quodl. 4. qu. 11. clearly proving three ways that we muſt love God above our ſelves, yea and not (properly) for our ſelves, but for himſelf, and our ſelves and all things for him.

But 1. I think he miſtaketh in ſaying that the Act of the Will is not the Object of the Will, and ſo that Viſio and not Amor are felicity objective: For as Ameſius ſaith, Dicimus omnium gentium conſenſu volo velle; and one Act may be the Volition of the next; and a complacency in that paſt: And what doth a Believer will more than perfectly to love God, next to God himſelf? And Amo Amore is an Act that we have full experience of. 2. And I am paſt all doubt; that Beatitudo noſtra qua talis is not the principal end of man, but God, 1. In his own Perfection or God-head; 2. The fulfilling or pleaſing of the Divine Will; 3. The Glory of Gods Image or Perfections as ſhining, 1. In the Univerſe, 2. And therein moſt eminently in the glorified Society, 3. And therein moſt eminently in the Perſon of Chriſt, 4. And next in all thoſe that are moſt excellent in their Order, 5. And among them in our ſelves, our holineſs and felicity: And this but in our own rank and place: For our Perfection and Unity with Chriſt and the glorified, will end all that narrow corrupt ſelfiſhneſs, which now maketh men dream that they are chiefly their own ends, (that is, their own gods) and that their Beatitude is the higheſt final notion, as if God were to be loved chiefly for our ſelves, as the means of our Beatitude: It being worth the conſidering, whether it be not a wrong to God to love him at all ſub ratione medii to our ſelves as an end, though we muſt love him as the firſt Efficient of all our Good, and our Great Benefactor, our ſelves and benefits being but means to Him, though yet (not He, but) many of his Gifts, may be loved as means to our Happineſs, and that and all things for God himſelf.

p. 26Among the Scotists, Rada well openeth this Caſe; and the worſt of them all (in 4. Sent. de Beatitud.) is far better than Dr. Stern, the Dublin Phyſitian, in his Medela Animae, and too many more novel immature Diſputers, who would make our Happineſs the chiefeſt end both of our ſelves and God, meerly becauſe that God can have no addition of Felicity: A reaſon vainly excluding ſuch other reſpects, as men that write of ſuch Subjects ſhould not be ignorant of: eſpecially when they reproach the School-men, and ſave themſelves the labour of underſtanding them; (when though they are too preſumptuous and curious, yet) one Rada, one Aegid. Column. Rom. one Joſeph Angles, &c. hath more clear explication of ſuch Difficulties as they preſumptuouſly tamper with, than an hundred of our late Oratorical Noveliſts, who are proud of their undigeſted new Philoſophy, and their unripe daring Wits.

p. 27THE Second Part. OF GODS GOVERNMENT, AND MORAL WORKS.