The Middle Way of the Covenants Law and Gospel, Part 1
THE Middle-Way
In One paper of THE COVENANTS, LAW and GOSPEL.
With Indifferency between the LEGALIST & ANTINOMIAN.
By J. H.
Doing nothing by Partiality,
LONDON, Printed for I, Parkhurſt, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheap-ſide, 1674.
OF The Covenants.
IT is one reaſon of my ſending out theſe ſheets thus in ſingle Papers, that I may have the opportunity my ſelf of Reflexion. If any thing be wanting I may ſupply it; where I am in the dark I may explain it, or call for Light; If I erre, I may correct it, and put my ſelf at eaſe ſtill when I need, as to the whole. It is verily a fooliſh thing I count for any man to think that he can ſpeak or write ſo, as what he hath once ſpoken or written cannot be mended. When we change our thoughts every day and week in our private Studies, what a vain reſolution is it, that becauſe we have Preached or Printed thus, the ſhutters muſt be drawen up preſently, and no more Light be let, to come in upon us. For my part I declare, I will never Preach or Print upon ſuch termes, but upon theſe: That I may be miſtaken; That I may acknowledg it, if I be convinced. That I may therefore be controuled, and have leave to be indifferent to my own opinion, as to anothers.
Two Papers I have ſent out already.
The firſt (or that which in order ſhould be firſt) is of Election and Redemption, wherein I obſerve ſome things to be miſplaced at the Preſs, but ſo long as the things be put in, and my notion propoſed, I am ſollicitous about nothing elſe. That God would have all to be ſaved, and therefore prepares that grace for all that is ſufficient, which is his antccedent will: and that then he foreſees who they be that will comply with that grace and and who not, and by his conſequent will decrees the one to ſalvation, and the other to damnation, is that Doctrin in the maine, that is the Rachel of the Schools. For the latter part whereof, I have given my thoughts in that paper: the former part requires a little further conſideration. That the goodneſs of God is advanced towards all, I like well, and that they lay the blame on man only that he periſhes, and that they are ſo careful againſt Pelagius, for therefore do they bring in a ſufficient grace for all, becauſe man ſhall be allowed him to do nothing that diſpoſes him to converſion or juſtification by his own strength without grace; nevertheleſs whether this ſufficient grace of theirs is to paſs or not, is the queſtion. There is the univerſal convourſe of God with man in all his acts as the firſt cauſe, in whom we live and move and have our being: and there is that influx or aſſiſtance of his, we call Grace. It would be known in the firſt place, what is the difference between theſe. That aſſiſtance of God which goes to the acts of Nature, and the prefervation thereof, is the common concourſe of his Providence, that aſſiſtance of his which goes to the production of acts above Nature, is called Grace. By Nature we mean corrupt Nature, and by acts above Nature we mean ſuch acts as we ſhould not do according to our natural inclination, if it were not for ſupernatural help, that is, ſome further operation or influence on us from God then that which goes only to our natural preſervation. Grace then in ſhort is that Divine aſſiſtance which Elevates Nature, and heales it. This Grace is twofold, the Divine motion, or habitual diſpoſition; habitualis gratia, or divina motio; the infuſed habit, or Divine operation. It is ſaid now in the Schools that there is this difference between infuſed habits, and acquired, that when the one do introduce only a facility to the action but preſuppoſes the power, the other do bring the power it ſelf, as without which we can do nothing. This is ſpoken I count very agreeably to the Scripture, which ſets forth man in his natural ſtate as dead in ſin, and the work of Grace by regeneration and new life, with many the like expreſſions: nevertheleſs, as there muſt be ſome limits fixt for the right interpretation of ſuch places which in effect muſt come to that which I have given in my firſt paper, (that there is indeed ſuch an indiſpoſition on all men through original corruption, as that there is no man ever does, did, or will repent, do his duty, and live, but it is, was, and muſt be through Gods eſpecial Grace, and yet are we to account for all that, that they have power, that they may if they will, that the covenant of grace requires not any thing which is impoſſible, for both theſe are to be held): So muſt I crave liberty to enter my different opinion. It was Pelagius his conceit (I have noted in one of my other papers) that grace ſerved only to help the power, when St. Auguſtine proves that it inclines the will, and works in us the deed: my thoughts now lye partly between both, that the Poſſe or Power indeed is of Nature, and Grace or the operation of God is that which drawes that power into the Will, or Act, that is makes us willing; This act of the Will laies an impreſſion on the ſoul inclining it to the like acts; Theſe acts iterated turns that inclination to an habit, that is Habitual grace, infuſed if you pleaſe, per modum acquiſitorum. The agere, the act muſt preſuppoſe the poſſe, the power, That's certain. If the habit then brought the power, the Divine motion, or preventing grace which goes before the habit, did nothing. You will ſay, There is a double power, a remote or next power. The remote power is of nature, but the next power is of grace, and ſufficient grace gives to all a next power. Let me ask you then, whether there be any further grace after we have the next power, to make us willing, or to give us alſo the will and deed. If you grant it, you may make the moſt of your ſufficient grace, I will not quarrel with you for it: But when the poſſe (the power) is of nature, and the Will and Deed is of that grace which is more than ſufficient, I would faine know why nature and effectual grace alone ſhould not ſerve the turn, and whether ſufficient grace over and above theſe is not indeed more than needs? Here I ſtick where I left.
The ſecond paper is of juſtification, and of this I count there are two parts. The one is, a reconciliation of St. James and Paul, and ſo of faith and works in that point: which I muſt needs ſay, having lain in my thoughts (& the main notion in Paper by me) this 16 or 18 Years or upwards, I cannot but be very throughly ſatisfied with, and much the rather, when I ſee the ſame growing up in late Books; as particularly in thoſe moſt judicious temperate Theſes of Le Blanc, and Mr. Trumans Great Propittation. The other is concerning the imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, wherein I will confeſs, though in my judgment I am perſwaded that what I have writ is the truth, and it is nothing but truth that made me write it: yet does my heart a little miſgive me, that it were better to let pious men alone to ſuch apprehenſions as they have imbibed, though mingled with much darkneſs and ſome errour, in ſuch a point as this, where ſo much of their peace and life is bound up, then to offer them any unſettlement by cleerer light, though I were able indeed to bring it to them. I may be allowed to be ſorry if I offend any body, but I ought to have a care I ſtumble none, who are good men and live godly; Neither would I ſtreighten my own ſoul. If there be any thing more therefore in the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſs then I have expreſſed in that paper, which I know not, I doe not part with my portion in it, I proteſt thus much, but will rather renounce all upon the conviction to cleave to it.
That Chriſts righteouſneſs does juſtify us from the Law, and ſo from ſin, and from condemnation, I do hold no leſs then others: but that Chriſts righteouſneſs does juſtify us by the Law, is an overgrown conception. It is certain, that no works of man be we never ſo holy, are able to ſtand before God in his diſſtrict judgment, that is, if he ſhould deal with us according to the exact juſtice of the Law without ſhewing us any mercy, which will be acknowledged by Proteſtants and Papiſts, who are ready to pray both with David, Enter not into judgment with thy ſervants O Lord, for in thy ſight ſhall no fleſh living be juſtified. If any Papiſt then ſhall think that mans righteouſneſs is made ſo perfect by Chriſts merits: or, any Proteſtant that Chriſts righteouſneſs it ſelf is ſo made ours, as that we are juſtified by the Law, upon that account, they are both miſtaken. This is the only true extreamity on both ſides: for it is not by the Law, but by Faith; by the Evangelical covenant, or by Grace that we are juſtified. We are not under the Law, ſayes the the Apoſtle, but under grace. It is enough for a poor ſinner to have a righteouſneſs imputed to him without works, and that he is pardoned: but to have a righteonſneſs imputed to him with works, is more then we can ſind to be allowed him. Chriſts righteouſneſs is ſuch, and to have that made ours in it ſelf, or ſo, as that in Gods reckoning we muſt be as righteous as he, I muſt needs ſay, it is not harder perhaps to believe that the bread is turned into Chriſts body (where we have a text for it) in the Sacrament: then to believe ſuch a conceit (for which we have no Scripture at all) in the matter of Juſtification. What then? Do I deny Imputation? No, but I explain it. It is by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, not inherent in us, our Divines will ſay Ordinarily, but imputed to us, that we are juſtified. And what if I thus interpret this for them, that is, not as if we had done in his perſon what Chriſt did, but by his righteouſneſs made ours in the effects only? So the very Learned Biſhop Forbs expreſly, Hoc eſt, Quoad effectum & fructum (See Conſiderationes modeſtae. De juſtificatione, l. 2. c. 2.) I will uſe the ſame words as they uſe, but I am not bound to the ſame conſtruction. Even as I will ſpeak of mans inſufficiency (I mentioned before) as other Divines do, and as the Scriptures do, that we can do nothing: but I will keep the due interpretation. I will ſay we can, and that we cannot, without loſs of my liberty: for I muſt underſtand it with its right meaſures. I will ſay I can in confeſſion of my ſin, and acknowledging God juſt: I will ſay I cannot in the ſenſe of my corruption, and the imploring his grace.
Indeed a man can hardly conſider the Doctrin of St. James never ſo little with that of Paul which is one part of my paper, but it will lead him to the other, which is to ſee that what our Proteſtants ſay ordinarily on this matter, does need a favourable expoſition. It is a jejune thing, I count, to bring the great diſpute that Paul hath with the Jewes about juſtification to this reſult only, whether we are juſtified by Faith, or the proper Work or Fruits of it? It is but a little more ſatisfactory to bring it only to this, whether it be by the obſervation of Moſes Law? For though this was the occaſion of the diſpute, and the Apoſtle therefore does ſhew them how it was by the Promiſe, and ſo by Faith that Abraham and the Jewes themſelves had life, and not by the Law, which was but a Schoolmaſter to lead them thereunto, or unto Chriſt: yet it is manifeſt, that he advances the point higher, while he tells them that by Works neither Jew nor Gemile could be juſtified, ſo that by works he muſt mean the obſervation of that Law of works which was common to both, and not Moſes Law only: and the reſolution of the diſpute in both Apoſtles comes to this (as I have ſaid) that it is by the performance of the covenant of Grace, and not of the ovenant of works, or Law of Moſes, that a man is to look for life everlaſting. I muſt add, Nor are they to be heard in a third place, who ſay, that the diſpute between Paul and the Jewes is neither of theſe, but whether we are juſtified by our own righteouſneſs, or by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and ſo reſolve that it is not by any works which we do, even Faith it ſelf as a work, but by the works Chriſt hath done for us, that is by the obedience of his life and death only. For though this be taught ordinarily by our Proteſtants, and is coincident with the firſt reſult, there is one thing I muſt ſay theſe Divines have not conſidered which I have offered them in my paper, that muſt bring them to another underſtanding. It is this, that the Apoſtle does indeed ſtand much upon the Righteouſneſs of God in oppoſition to works, in the buſineſs of juſtification, but never oppoſes our works to the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt: the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt in their ſenſe being truly a very contrary thing to the Righteouſneſs of God in the ſenſe of the Apoſtle. The righteouſneſs of God according to the A oſtle, if I may then deſcribe it but as well as I can, and as the thing is, and a little more fully then I have in my former paper, is on Gods part, his taking our human frailey or falne nature into that meet conſideration, as not to deale with us in his diſtrict judgment which we cannot beare, but according to his Covenant of Mercy: the righteouſneſs, ſacrifice, attonement or ſatisfaction of Chriſt being ſuppoſed as the foundation upon which his Juſtice does ſtand good, notwithſtanding this condeſcention: And conſequently on Mans part, this righteouſneſs is our imperfect duty performed in ſincerity according to this new Law, and ſo for Chriſts ſake accepted to Salvation. In this ſenſe am I apt to underſtand that everlaſting Righteouſneſs which is brought in, by the Meſſiah, or by his covenant, in Daniel: and in this ſenſe do I conſtrue that Title, The Lord our Righteouſneſs. Only when I have ſaid in my former paper, that it is not appropriated to the ſecond Perſon, I deſire not to be ſo taken, as if I ſuppoſed that by the Branih in the two Texts of Jeremy where we find it, Zcrubabble only was meant (though a total ſilence in the new Teſtament of ſo pertinent a quotation for Chriſt, if it were ſpoken of him, might well tempt Grotius to that interpretation) but that, the Divinity of Chriſt being thereby aſſerted, it is a Title that muſt belong to him as God, and not as Second perſon. For the Son is Lord, and the Father is Lord, and the Holy Ghoſt Lord: and yet not three Lords, but one Lord, The Lord our Righteouſneſs.
There is the uncreated, abſolute righteouſneſs of God, which is the Divine eſſence it ſelf, for as God is Truth in the abſtract, ſo is he Righteouſneſs: or the created, relative righteouſneſs of God, that is his righteouſneſs ſet forth in relation to us, which conſiſts in his dealing with us as his Creatures according to our conditions. This relative righteouſneſs then is double. The Righteouſneſs or Juſtice of God according to the Covenant of works: and the righteouſneſs or equity of God according to the Covenant of grace. The one I count to be that our Divines call his Strict: the other his Paternal Juſtice. When God made man at firſt and gave him the Law of his Creation, he was to deale with him according to this perfect Law, and it was but equal according to his perfect ſtate, and this being the original righteouſneſs (as I may ſay) of God in relation to us, there are none of us but do find ſome ſenſe of it in our hearts, that makes us not ſo much only to fear, as to be afraid of him under that apprehenſion. But there is another righteouſneſs then this, which was ever afoot in the world ſince the promiſe of the womans ſeed, or elſe there were no man could have bin Saved, though it be ſaid to be now manifeſted (as brought in, in Daniels phraſe) becauſe the reaſon upon which it is founded, that is mans reconciliation to God by Chriſt, is revealed by the Goſpel, and this is the righteouſneſs of God oppoſed to works (or to his ſtrict Juſtice which he was bound to exerciſe according to the Covenant of works) that is ſo magnified by the Apoſtle. And here now is a diſtinction to be uſed which I want Termes to expreſs. For this righteouſneſs of God muſt be conſidered with regard to himſelf, which is his dealing with us according to the Covenant of Faith for Chriſts ſake, when he might deale with us according to the Covenant of Nature if he would: and with regard to us, or to the condition upon which he does ſo mercifully deale with us. As the Love of God is taken in Scripture both for his Love towards us, and our Love of him: So is the Righteouſneſs of God taken for both theſe, his dealing with us according to this covenant, and the condition on our part which he accepts. And hence is it, that when it is called the Righteouſneſs of God in one place, it is called the Righteouſneſs of Faith in another; and in a third, the Righteouſneſs which is of God by Faith. Now when it is our faith, our repentance, our new obedience which is the Righteouſneſs of God it ſelf (taken—help me to two Termes) whereby we are juſtified in oppoſition to the works of the Law, which no man can perform to be juſtified by them: and our Divines by works will underſtand all good works, even this faith it ſelf as a work (as was ſaid), and our Evangelical obedience, inſomuch as when there is no righteouſneſs but what is without us can be oppoſed to theſe, it makes them by the Righteouſneſs of God to underſtand the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt who is God, and by faith the righteouſneſs of Chriſt apprehended by Faith, which are in good earneſt conceptions ſo ſtrained: it appeares (if I may uſe thoſe words in humility) how being ignorant of the Righteouſneſs of God in the right notion, and going about to eſtabliſh in a contrary vein to the Jews a righteouſneſs which is not their own but anothers, in the ſtead of that which it is not, they have not ſubmitted to the truth, in this Doctrin of Juſtification.
And here in now (farther) does appeare the ground of reconciliation between the Papiſts and us upon the point. For when the one and the other (let their Books be conſulted) do goe on the ſuppoſition that it is by the Law (the Law of works) that we are juſtified, this Hypotheſis being removed, the oppoſition on both ſides falls to the ground. That no man can bring or plead any ſuch righteouſneſs of his own before God as anſwers the Law, the Proteſtant muſt needs be in the right, and conſequently if it were by the Law that we muſt ſtand or fall at his Tribunal, there was a neceſſity for their bringing in the righteouſneſs of Chriſt made ours by faith (as they do) to juſtify us: but when indeed it is not ſo, when it is not (I ſay) by the Law, but by the Covenant of Grace, or by the Goſpel that we are to be judged, it is ſome wonder to me, this plain truth ſhould be no better underſtood. That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the covenant of grace is the accounting or declaring him righteous; and that Gods accounting a man righteous is his juſtification. Let no man deceive you (ſays St. John) he that doth righteouſneſs, is righteous. That righteouſneſs which makes a man righteous and denominates him righteous, is that righteouſneſs which makes God account him righteous. But this is the righteouſneſs which he does. Note it, for it is expreſs. And what righteouſneſs is that? Why, Not the righteouſneſs of works which no man does: but the righteouſneſs of the Goſpel, that is in the ſtile of the other Apoſtle, a righteouſneſs without works (to wit, without the works of the Law, or perfect works, in the ſenſe he ſayes alſo God juſtifies the ungodly) ſo that it is by Grace, while it it by this Righteouſneſs (which does and muſt lean on the merits of Chriſt no leſs then we ſay Faith it ſelf does) that we are juſtified and ſaved.
That the end of Chriſts coming into the world, of our redemption, and the Covenant of Grace, was that we ſhould be holy and righteous is ſaid ordinarily by Divines according to the Scriptures, but the right and plain underſtanding or reaſon of what they ſay, is not ſo ordinary. He hath choſen up in Chriſt that we ſhould be holy. He hath redeemed us from iniquity that we ſhould be a peculiar People. We are his workmanſhip created unto good works in (or through) Chriſt Jeſus. When God made man at firſt and gave him a Law, it was that he ſhould live Holy. When righteouſneſs then was the end of his Creation and the Law thereof, how is this ſaid to be the end of his Redemption? I anſwer. Righteouſneſs (or holineſs as they are one) we muſt know, does lye in a conformity to the Law which God gives us. There is nothing elſe, and nothing leſs then this (the full performance of a Law given) that is Righteouſneſs. Upon this account, as ſoon as man once fell and broke the Law of his creation, it was impoſſible he ſhould be righteous any more, unleſs there were a new Law brought in, in the performance whereof he might attain to that again which he had loſt. Now to this end was it, that Chriſt came and died, this was the very main buſineſs (I count) of his Redemption, even the procuring this new Law, or another Law with lower termes, which ſome men performing, they do thereby become righteous, and ſo have righteouſneſs, according to that Law, imputed to them for remiſſion, and life eternal. Here you ſee what that righteouſneſs indeed is which Chriſt is ſaid to bring in, and in what ſenſe he hath brought it in, or how ſuch Texts (as thoſe before) do attribute our Holineſs to him. The obedience of Chriſts life and death, we know, was fulfilled on earth, and of this he himſelf hath once ſaid, It is finiſhed: But the righteouſneſs he is ſaid to bring in, is called an Everlaſting righteouſneſs. And what then can that be, but the righteouſneſs of the Goſpel, which upon the ſame account alſo is called the Everlaſting Gospel? That is, becauſe it is by this righteouſneſs in oppoſition to that of the Law (or the righteouſneſs of works) that all men from the beginning of the world to the end of it, (and ſo is it to be accounted ever of force) do obtain everlaſting Salvation.
I know the great difficulty of this Doctrin will lye on the point of remiſſion. Our Divines do generally place juſtification in the remiſſion of Sin; ſo do the Papiſts (with ſomething elſe), and ſo have I my ſelf after others. Nevertheleſs, as I remember St. Auguſtine in one place does find fault with this in Pelagius: ſo hath the perplexity of it of late lead me into the like thoughts. The truth is, Pardon of Sin is a benefit unto which the juſtified perſon is adjudged, as eternal life is: but remiſſion of Sin muſt not be made the formal reaſon of juſtification. Our Divines may define juſtification to be an Act of Grace whereby God gives us Eternal Life (or a right to it,) as well as, an act of grace whereby he pardons our ſins. That act, that very only act wherein the form of juſtification does lye, is Gods accounting or pronouncing a man righteous, and this is a forenſical act, according to Law, the Law, or Covenant of grace; Which covenant promiſing Forgivencſs and Life upon the performance of its Conditions, when a man hath performed them, he hath a right to thoſe benefits, and when God does declare or account that a man hath performed them (which is all one as to judge him righteous), theſe benefits flow to him from that judgment (or are confer'd on him by that act) as Effects of that cauſe, and conſequently cannot be the very act it ſelf, which is the cauſe of them.
To forgive a mans ſin, and declare him righteous are two things inconſiſtent one with another in the ſame reſpect, and therefore when God pronounces a man juſt, it is according to the Law of Faith, and when he pardons his Sin, it is in reſpect to the Law of works. And how then can two acts incompatable but in divers reſpects (cùm omne ens ſit unum) be made to enter one and the ſame definition?
It is true as all agree, that there are no works that man does, or can doe, able to make God any amends for our offences, ſo that remiſſion of ſin muſt be attributed altogether to the merits of Chriſt in regard to the attonement made. But we muſt diſtinguiſh of Remiſſion, Remiſſion is either Conditional and Univerſal as it lyes in the Covenant, and is the purchaſe of Chriſt: or Actual, as it lyes in the application thereof to particular perſons upon performance of the condition. When Divines do ſay we can doe nothing our ſelves for procuring reconciliation and remiſſion, it is to be underſtood of Conditional univerſal remiſſion. No mortal could do any thing toward the obtaining of that. God was in Chriſt reconciling the World unto himſelf not imputing their treſpaſſes. But as for remiſſion Actual, that man muſt be blind who ſees not that God does every where require us to repent, beleeve, confeſs our faults, forſake them, do good works, forgive others, that we may have pardon, and be ſaved. Conditional pardon now is antecedent to a mans juſtification, and contained in our redemption. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveneſs of Sins. Actual remiſſion is ſubſequent to juſtification, for we muſt be ſuppoſed firſt to have performed the condition and be pronounced righteous, and then pardoned. When there is no remiſſion then but what does either goe before, or follow juſtification, it cannot be made the very act it ſelf of our juſtification.
There is one Text may be oppoſed. Even as David alſo deſcribed the bleſſedneſs of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteouſneſs without works. Saying, Bleſſed are they whoſe iniquities are forgiven. It ſeems that the Righteouſneſs which Paul ſpeaks of without works in the one verſe, is deſcribed by pardon in the other. This I my ſelf have alleadged, but upon farther conſideration I anſwer. The man to whom God imputeth righteouſneſs without works, or the bleſſedneſs of that man, is deſcribed: but we may ſuppoſe, not the Righteouſneſs without works. The ſcope of the Apoſtle is plainly to ſhew us only, that it is not by works of the Law, or ſuch works as would make the reward of debt and not of grace (as appeares in the immediate verſes before) which are perfect works, that a man is juſtified. And he proves it by this argument, becauſe the man is bleſſed whoſe ſins are forgiven; that is as much as to ſay, not he who is without ſin, but he who hath ſin and it is forgiven. The man who is bleſſed is juſtified. But the man who is bleſſed hath ſin to be forgiven. Therefore the righteouſneſs which a man hath, or is imputed to him, is not a righteouſneſs according to the Law of works, but according to the Covenant of Grace. This I ſay is the ſcope of the place. Gods imputing Righteouſneſs to a perſon is indeed a phraſe ſignifying Gods accounting him righteous or juſtifying him: and the Apoſtle Proves a man is juſtified without works, (that is perfect works) becauſe he hath ſin to be covered. I will yet repcate, The man to whom righteouſneſs is imputed without works, is pardoned: but it followes not, that this Righteouſneſs without works is pardon. To have righteouſneſs imputed to a man without works, is all one as to have faith imputed to him for righteouſneſs, ſo repentance or evangelical obedience, and that is not pardon, though theſe are never divided from the ſame ſubject. I will conclude therefore with that I have ſaid once before, & will ſay it again at my parting with the point, that it is ſtrange to me our Proteſtant Divines ſhould be ſo offward to this cleer Determination. To wit, God judges (and will judge) all men according to the Goſpel; Thoſe who perform the condition of it, he accounts or pronounces righteous; They whom he accounts righteous, are juſtified. I will add, That, the righteouſneſs of Chriſt which is the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification without diſpute on all hands (that is the impulſive procatartick cauſe,) which alwayes comes under the Efficient, cannot for the ſame reaſon be the Formal, or Material cauſe of it. It is not the infuſion of Righteouſneſs with the Papiſt, which is our ſanctification; nor the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſs with the Proteſtant, which is not to be underſtood but in genere cauſae Efficientis; nor remiſſion of Sin, with Proteſtant and Papiſt, which I have now bin diſproving: but the imputing to a perſon his performance of the new covenant for righteouſneſs, or the accounting or pronouncing him righteous according to that covenant, is the form, formal Cauſe, or formal Reaſon of his juſtification.
Do not think this ſtrange, Juſtification (I will grant) virtually or Eminenter (as unum aggregatione) containes in it many things, and ſo remiſſion among others (for we muſt find line to ſpeak as Divines uſe): but Juſtification Formaliter (as unum ſimplex) I ſay, is only Gods pronouncing us Juſt (or ſincere penitent believers), and remiſſion is a benefit which in order of Nature does follow the performance of that condition.
And ſo I proceed to my third Paper, Of the Covenants, Of the Law and Goſpel.
For the Doctrin of the Covenants. There is the Covenant of Works (ſay Divines): and the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of works (ſay they) was made with Adam in his integrity being that Law which is written in all mens hearts, and ſo requires perfection, and for the leaſt tranſgreſſion threatens Death. The Covenant of grace is made with man in his Eſtate fallen (or with Chriſt in his behalf), and requires only our Faith, repentance, and ſincerity, unto Life, which being held forth under the Title of the Promiſe to Adam, Abraham, David, and all during the Law, was ratified by the death and blood of Chriſt the Redeemer under the Goſpel, and ſo promulgated to the world, to continue ſtill on force (and in that, as in one regard, called new) as long as that laſts. Behold the dayes come ſaith the Lord when I will make a new Covenant, not according to the Covenant I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt. Here is the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old is that which God made with the Jews when Moſes lead them in the wilderneſs. The New is that which we have under the Goſpel. The old Covenant then is not the Covenant of works; for that was made with all in Adam, and as written in our hearts, muſt be eternally obligatory. But the old Covenant was made with the Jews in oppoſition to other Nations, and as peculiar to them is vaniſhed, and binds not. Neither is it the Covenant of grace for the ſame reaſon, as alſo becauſe the covenant of grace is the new covenant, but the New is not the Old. The Old and New covenants ſay Divines indeed ordinarily, are both the covenant of grace in oppoſition to that of works, the ſame in ſubſtance, but differing in the Adminiſtration. But this with me is not ſo eaſy to be received without the diſtinction of an A and The in the caſe. The Old covenant may be a covenant of grace, or covenant of works, or both, but not the covenant of works, or the covenant of grace. There are ſome plead it is a ſubſervient covenant as Camero. Some that it is a mixt covenant as Ball. Some that it is a covenant of works as the Loyden Divines. The moſt of our own late Divines, do make it a covenant of grace. Whereof one voluminous Authour denying the other three opinions, does yet ſay it was ſo diſpenſed as to tender life both upon the condition of Faith, and works. But if it propoſed life on condition of perfect doing, it was a covenant of works: If on believing too, a Covenant mixt both of Works and Grace: And as perfect doing was urged only in tendency to believing, a Covenant-Subſervient; and ſo all ſay true as to the main; and yet none ſo diſtinctly true, as to leave any enquiring man without confuſion in what they ſay. There is one thing then I apprehend will ſerve much for the enodation of many difficulties in theis matter, and that is to conceive aright what the Old Covenant is: And there is another like it to the ſame purpoſe, to know what kind of Covenant it was.
As for the former, we have hitherto been ſeeing but what it is not only; now to underſtand what it is, Let us ſeparate what Moſes did deliver to the Iſraelites, from that which was before in promiſe to the Patriarks as ſingle by it ſelf, and this is the Old Covenant. Or, take that, and all that whatſoever, and in what manner ſoever, that was added to the Covenant of Grace, which Abraham and the Patriarks were under, and that abſtracted therefrom, is I count, the Old Covenant. Let me yet ſpeak more fully; Take Abraham before he was ninety years old, when he at firſt Believed, and that Faith was imputed to him for Righteouſneſs, upon which he became the Father of the faithful, while as yet he was in his Uncircumciſion (for the Law of Circumciſion which was after given in peculiar reference to his natural Seed the Jews, in purſuance of the temporal Benediction, is to be reckoned as Preambulatory to the Law, and belonging to it), and when you have pared away Circumciſion, and all that which Moſes commanded the Jews afterwards, from Walk before me only, and be perfect; all this reſt, this pared away from that, whatſoever it be, is I ſay, the Old Covenant, or the Law ſtrictly taken. From this in the firſt place, we have light to diſtinguiſh between the Law taken ſtrictly and largely: In regard whereof, we ſhall find the Apoſtles ſomtimes proving the Righteouſneſs of Faith from the Law, being witneſſed by the Law and the Prophets; and another time ſetting the Law and Goſpel at the wideſt diſtance and oppoſition. As the Law is taken comprehenſively for the promiſe to Abraham, as well as the Covenant made with the Jews (that is for the whole ſtate they ſtood in, who were under the Law, by vertue of the Covenant confirm'd to their fore Fathers as by vertue of that given by Moſes,) the Law and Goſpel are confounded. As the Law is taken ſtrictly or preciſely for the Old Covenant, or the Law of Moſes with Circumciſion its appurtenance, that is for all that apart that was added to the promiſe before-going, and abſtracted there-from as I have ſaid, ſo are they diſtinguiſhed, and their differences to be owned and maintained. In the next place, we may underſtand from this, how the Jews were under both conditions of Believing and Doing: Of doing this and live; and of believing alſo that they might be ſaved. To wit, As the Covenant of Grace was delivered to their fore-Fathers, and ſo on foot before, it muſt needs hold forth life to them on their Faith, as well as to Abraham their Progenitour, who received Circumciſion as a ſeal of Righteouſneſs thereby (or to come thereby), and not by the Law, which as yet was not given. And as the Law was added (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks) to this Covenant or Promiſe, it did tye the Jews to a performance of it as a condition of living by it, in ſome ſenſe, as neither the Patriarks before, nor we ſince are under; and in regard whereof that which is ſaid by a reverend perſon, that the Old Teſtament-Spirit was a fearing Spirit, with the like expreſſions, are not without a truth in them, that deſires more conſideration then One of late does give them: Eſpecially when the Apoſtle is ſo expreſs that the Jews were under a School-Maſter, and we are not under that School-Maſter. That the Covenant from Sinai engendered to Bondage; but where the Spirit of the Lord is, or the New Teſtament is, there is Liberty. From this yet in the third place, we may enlarge our light further, to judge of that abrogation of the Law, or deliverance from it, which Chriſtians have under the Goſpel. A glorious thing (the Apoſtle counts it), that puts us directly into ſuch an eſtate and condition as the Patriarks, and thoſe holy men before Abraham were in, to live according to the light and liberty of their Conſciences, that is according to the Law of Nature, which as it is in the hands of Chriſt, and not of Moſes, to wit, as delivered from the Yoke of his Ceremonies, and the ſuperſtition of Idolaters, and adminiſtred with Grace and the Spirit, with Grace in God's acceptation of our ſincerity inſtead of perfect obedience for the Redeemers ſake, and with the Spirit in his aſſiſtance of us for the performance, is both the Univerſal Religion of Man-kind, and the ſubſtance of that which is Chriſtian unto this day. I ſhould quote Euſebius, De praep. Evan. See his Ecc. Hiſt. l. 1. c. 5. From whence alſo, we ſee in the way, how the Covenant of Grace which Abraham and all thoſe holy men which went before him, or that ever were, have had as well as we, is yet called the New Covenant; and that is, it is called New, as the lump is called a new lump by the Apoſtle to the Corinths. That Church was leavened by the ill example of vicious Members, particularly of the inceſtuous perſon, they are therefore commanded to caſt him out, and that they ſhould not mingle themſelves, or keep company with the ſeandalous, and in ſo doing, they ſhould become, as it were, a new body, or lump, though they were ſtill otherwiſe but the ſame Community. Purge out therefore the old Leaven, that you may be a new Lump. So is it with the Covenant, it was made by God with all man-kind in Chriſt, ever ſince the beginning of the World, and confirmed to the Patriarchs (it being impoſſible elſe that any ſhould have been ſaved), and yet it is called a New Covenant in relation to us under the Goſpel; becauſe I ſay that, that which was added to it by Moſes, to wit, all that which properly is the Old Covenant, is removed or purged away, as the Leaven in the Jews Feaſt, by Chriſt our Paſs-over, who hath been Sacrificed, and made for us that expurgation. And if that which is done away was glorious, how much more that which remains? That which is done away, was the Miniſtration of death engraven in ſtone, and of the Letter that killeth: That which remaineth, is the Miniſtration of the New Teſtament, of the Spirit which giveth Life, and of Righteouſneſs. That which remaineth, I pray note it, That cannot be ſaid to remain which was not before extant. The Covenant of Grace with the Patriarchs, and the New Covenant with us, being the very ſame, as I have ſaid, but ours only called New, (or renewed) upon the aboliſhing of that which was ſuper-added, as upon this remaining too it ſelf, never to wax old and vaniſh.
For the latter, what kind of Covenant I take this to be, I am now in order to tell you. The Old Covenant, as to me it ſeemeth, was a kind of Political Covenant made with the Nation of the Jews, as Princes compacts are with their people, when they firſt ſet up Government. God promiſes them his Protection, that he would lead them to a fruitful Land; overcome all their Enemies, with the like bleſſings; and they promiſe him they will be ruled by him. To this purpoſe did God in ſundry ways appear to them to Moſes, to their Elders, to them all in the Clouds and Fire; and then cauſes a Tabernacle to be made for him, which was a Keeping houſe among them, where the Sacrifices and Offerings was his Proviſion, and the Prieſts his Servants that lived on him; and unto that Tabernacle and Ark, might they repair for Counſel and Judgment. This People then being peculiarly under a Theocracy, which Samuel in two places does expreſly ſignify (at leaſt until the time of Saul,) ſo that the Church and Common-wealth of the Jews were but one, according to the Apoſtle; it is no wonder if Religion be made their Laws, and ſo required of them, together with other political Ordinances and Statutes, for their happineſs or publick peace as a Nation. From hence is it, that though their Law is not to be judged the Covenant of Works, or the Covenant of Grace, either of the two themſelves, yet may we expect that it ſhould repreſent both the one and the other to them; becauſe in the knowledge of both does the buſineſs of Religion, and the whole of it, virtually conſiſt. In the delivery of the Moral Law, and that with Thunder and Lightning, and ſuch Terrour as we read of it, they had a repreſentation of the Covenant of Nature, which quafaedus is doubtleſs in our falne Eſtate a Miniſtration only of Wrath, or Law of ſin and death. In their Ceremonial Offerings, and Prieſtly appointments, though there was a remembrance ſtill of ſin, and ſo matter of bondage and ſear, yet had they types of Chriſt, of remedying Mercy, and the Glory to come. Theſe Sacrifices were brought directly as Mulcts to their King, to deliver them from the danger of preſent puniſhment, being Redemptions of their lives, which elſe they ſhould have forfeited by his Laws, and ſerved, I have ſaid, to the maintenance of his houſe, the Tabernacle and Temple which he was pleaſed to keep up among them: Nevertheleſs that does not hinder, but God Almighty might make uſe thereof, farther, for types and repreſentations of other things, that is to ſay Spiritual, and ſo the Law be a Paedagogy under a temporal diſpenſation, leading many to Heaven. This is certain, that the Covenants of Nature & Grace being made with Man-kind, are not matters of concernment only to the Jews, but to the whole world as well as to them for everlaſting life and death; and it is not to be conceived, therefore, that either of them ſhould receive any detriment by the Covenant made with that particular Nation. This, I ſay, that the Covenant confirmed before of God in Chriſt, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot diſannul, that it ſhould make the Promiſe of no effect. The Covenant of God in Chriſt, is the covenant of grace, and that we ſee a-foot in the world before the Law, and before Abraham; for, when it was confirmed to Abraham, it muſt be in being before on neceſſity, and ever was ſince the Fall, or elſe none after could be ſaved. And if this be not diſannul'd, then cannot that, whatſoever it be, which is given by this covenant, come to the Jews by the Law. For as the Apoſtle argues, If there had been a Law given that could have given life, verily Righteouſneſs ſhould have been by the Law; If the Law of Nature could be kept by man, there would be no need of a covenant of Grace by Chriſt: So do I argue, if Righteouſneſs unto juſtification of life, was to come by the Law, the Promiſe, or Covenant of Grace, as ſoon as that was given, might be ſpared. But for-as-much as eternal life and juſtification does come only by the covenant of grace, it follows that the covenant made with the Jews, muſt needs be a covenant which concern'd their outward ſtate, or political welfare, as I have ſaid; and that neither Salvation nor Condemnation, as to the life to come, was the primary intention, or the direct and proper effect of it.
If Salvation, or Condemnation was the proper iſſue of the Law, then could neither any of thoſe holy men as the Patriarchs, nor any of the wicked world, who were before the Law, as the men of Sodom and Gomorah be condemned at the day of Judgment: For where no Law is, there is no Tranſgreſſion, and ſo no Condemnation. And indeed, if this covenant was conceived any other than ſome ſuch thing as I make it, how could it be, that the moſt ſubſtantial part, or body of the Jews Nation ſhould be Sadduces in Chriſt's time? The Covenant of Nature is that which lays all the world guilty before God; ſo that He who believes not, is Condemned already; he is condemned by the Law of his Creation writ in his heart; he needs no outward Law to condemne him. Whatſoever things the Law ſaith, it ſaith to them who are under the Law: If there were no Curſe, nor Death, but that which the Jews Law doth ſpeak, then were there none but the Jew ſhould ſuffer Condemnation. If a man on the contrary ſide does believe and repent, he needs no other Law than that of the ſpirit of life in Chriſt Jeſus, to ſet him free from this Law of Sin and Death. So long as he does not believe, he abides under that Wrath, and it is not for want of Faith as the cauſe of his Condemnation (to juſtify God in not giving all men that alike), but for want of it (N B,) as that which ſhould be the remedy, that he periſhes. Salvation then, and Condemnation which is Eternall, does proceed from the covenants of grace and works; and it is not to be imagined that God ſhould deal otherwiſe with the Jews than with the reſt of the world, as to the terms of a future life. I have ſet before you Life and Death, ſays Moſes. And Curſed be he that continueth not in all the Law to do it. But what this Life and Death, theſe Bleſſings and Curſes are, we ſee expreſs in Deuteronomy, and in the fifth Commandement. The Laws which God did give the Jews, were about Religion, and about Civil matters. Religion concern'd their Eternal, civil things their Temporal good. Yet whether they are commanded the obſervation of the one or the other, the ſanction of both does lye in the threats and promiſes of Temporal bleſſings and judgments. Even as in the Laws of our Realm, Rellgion and the Service of God is required under a civil forfeiture, when it is the Goſpel it ſelf muſt threaten farther Vengeance to the Tranſgreſſor. In ſhort, herein will lye the miſtery and ſum of all. The Law, as it was in the hand of Moſes, and given to the peculiar Nation of the Jews, muſt be no other than a temporal covenant; yet did this temporal covenant contain in it patterns of things (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks) in the Heavens. And as the ten Commandements particularly, written in ſtone, are a tranſcript of the Moral Law written by Nature in our hearts, I do take the Law to repreſent the covenant of works, and by vertue of that repreſentation alone, or of that it repreſents, does it operate to future judgment, and is the miniſtration of condemnation. The Law indeed, taken at large, for all that is contained in the whole books of the Old Teſtament, may be ſuppoſed to hold forth whatſoever is in the covenant of works and grace: but the Law taken ſeparately from both, as a third covenant, cannot hold forth any other than the external government of God with propriety over the Jews, and that conſiſting in theſe two things, to wit, a hard task of burdenſome dutyes under the danger of temporal judgments, and a redreſs from them by Sacrifices; the one typifying our eſtate according to the Law of works; and the other, the grace which comes to us by Chriſt Jeſus.
What uſe may be made of this, I leave to minds which are ſearching. I am never out of my way I count, ſo long as I meet with any ſuch. Only there is one in a late Book, who ſeems to fall a little too hard on a grave Preacher for making the diſpenſation of the Old Teſtament, in ſome Sermons of his, to be more terrible than ours under the New: For doing which he hath thus much the more reaſon indeed, if (as I ſay) that life and death which is Eternal, comes not from the Law, but from the Covenants of Works and Grace, which were before it, and cannot be made voyd by it. There is therefore the Believing Penitent Sinner, and the Ʋnbelieving and Impenitent. For the man that ſins and repents not, it is true that he hath no leſs reaſon to fear under the Goſpel than under the Law; but rather the more, in regard that the threatnings of the Law were directly, I take it only of temporal puniſhments, but the Goſpel does manifeſtly threaten Eternal. Of how much ſorer punniſhment (ſays the Scripture) worthy he is? But for the Penitent and Believing, the caſe is otherwiſe, and the Reprover ſhould know it is in regard of ſuch, that this difference is to be holden. It is true then, the Penitent Jew had the Promiſe to truſt to as well as we, but yet he was ſtill under the Law, and not we: and the Law it ſelf did engender to bondage, as in the Scripture before quoted. He had the Promiſe as well as we, but he could not look unto it as well as we, he had a vail over him as we have not, that he could not ſtedfaſtly look unto the end of that which was aboliſhed. This is moſt apparent that the Jews were in the dark as to their underſtanding of the covenant, and Chriſt that End, after another manner than we are, and the more they were in the dark, the more muſt they be in doubts and fears, and upon this foundation is this difference built ordinarily, I ſuppoſe, by the Underſtanding. Nevertheleſs, there is yet this one thing or two farther, that under the Law, there was recourſe to be had ſtill unto their Sacrifices, which were remembrances of ſin, I ſaid before, and conſequently of terrour and bondage, ſeeing if they failed, they had reaſon of fear in regard of temporal puniſhments, as much more then we, as they had to expect temporal bleſſings more then we upon their obedience, upon the account they were under a peculiar temral covenant. Adde hereunto, Theſe temporal things under that covenant were reſemblances, patterns, and in ſome ſence portendments of future. To what end then ſerved the Law, ſays the Apoſtle, as you may likewiſe adjoyn from this ſuppoſition? It was added becauſe of Tranſgreſſions. The Law entred that the offence might abound. Again, By the Law comes the knowledg of ſin; and though ſin was in the world before, men were not apt to impute it to themſelves without a Law. The Law then was for the brideling the Jews from ſin, and through the conviction of ſin upon the Conſcience, and that temporal death they ſaw due to them in the Beaſts that were ſlain in their behalfs, they might be driven in the ſence of their ſpiritual eſtates, to the remedying Law of Mercy upon Repentance which is the ſubſtance of the Promiſe which God had given to their Fore-Fathers, and has eſtabliſhed in the Goſpel. For Chriſt was the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs; and the Law was a Schoolmaſter (ſays the Apoſtle) to drive us to Chriſt.