A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 6 – Aphorism 11
Aphorism.
THe same Damnation that followeth the Page 15.breach of the New-Covenant, it could not be (viz. which was threatned in the first) no more than the life then enjoyed, is the same with that which the New-Covenant promiseth.
Animadvers.
You should say, [No more than the life then promised is the same, &c.] For otherwise your Comparison is not equal. Now to me it is more than probable, for the Reasons prealledged, That the Life promised in the first Covenant, was the same with that which the New-Covenant doth promise, and consequently, that the same Death and Damnation (for substance) is threatned in both Covenants. And do not many yet lie under the first Covenant, and that shall be punished merely as Transgressors of that Covenant, the New-Covenant having never so much as been made known unto them? See Rom. 2. 12. And shall not the Damnation of such, be (for substance) the same with the Damnation of those that transgress the New-Covenant? Shall not both go to the same Hell, and endure the same Torment, though not in the same degree? See 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8, 9.
In the Append. p. 10. you argue thus, [If you say that Adam should have died, and rose again to Torment, what Scripture saith so? 2. Where should he have risen? 3. You contradict many Scriptures, which make Christ the Mediator the only Procurer of the Resurrection.]
Answ. 1. The Scripture sheweth, that man transgressing the first Covenant, should die the first Death, Gen. 2. 17. and 3. 19. And not the first Death only, but also the second Death, if it be not prevented by that Mercy which is held out in the New-Covenant. The wages of sin is death, saith the Apostle, Rom. 6. 23. And the Death which he speaketh of, is opposed to etrenal Life, which is the free-gift of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord; and therefore it must extend to that which the Scripture calls the second Death. And seeing the Body is co-partner with the Soul in the Transgression, it is not probable that the first Covenant doth denounce the second Death only against the Soul, and not against the Body also, on which (after the Soul is separated from it) it cannot be inflicted without a Resurrection.
2. Adam, and so others, should have risen either (as now they shall) in the end of the World, or when it should have pleased God to raise them.
3. Though Christ as Mediator be now the only Procurer of the Resurrection, yet it follows not, that if Christ had not been Mediator, there should have been no Resurrection; no more than i… doth follow, that then the Sentence of Damnation should not have been executed upon Transgressors. That which you cite in the Aphor. p. 30. from 1 Cor. 15. 12. & 21. 22. speaks only of Resurrection unto Glory, as is clear by Vers. 23. & 42, &c.
Reply.
I confess that I then supposed there was no other Life promised, than that which was enjoyed; and that the right to it was from actual Collation, and not by Promise: My Reason was, because I found no such Promise. And most Divines say, that the words of the Commination implying a Promise, are our proof that it was a Covenant or Promise. Now I found no Promise certainly implied in the words of the Commination, but the continuance of that Life which he had. For to say, [Thou shalt die,] implies indeed [otherwise thou shalt not die:] But no more.
I have shewed you now what makes me suspend *And since resolved me.my judgment: And for your further Reason, [That many lie under the first Covenant, that shall be punished merely as Transgressors of that Covenant, the New-Covenant having never been made known to them. I reply far more confidently, that I am strongly perswaded you will never prove it while you live. I do not think that any man living, is now under the mere Covenant of Works, as Adam was, Sine Foedere novo, vel Gratiâ remediante. Prove that God dealeth with any one on these terms now only, [Obey perfectly, and live;] or, [If thou ever sin, thou shalt die everlastingly.] I do affirm indeed, That men may be said to be under the Law of Nature still; but not merely, nor alone, as Adam, without any Remedy. I could well find in my heart to joyn issue on this point, and stay longer on it, but that it would be a Digression, being on so light a touch. Only thus much,
1. The Covenant of Works doth not allow men (or God, according to that Covenant, doth not give men) such rich and numerous Mercies, as the poorest Indians do enjoy; therefore God dealeth not with them merely on the terms of the Covenant of Works.
2. The Mercies given, according to the mere Covenant of Works, are not given to lead men to Repentance; (for it alloweth no Repentance, but that of Desperation:) But the Mercies that Pagans have are given to lead them to Repentance; therefore they are not given according to the mere Law of Works.
3. If Christ, as Mediator, shall judg all, then all are some-way of that Kingdom whereof he is King, and under those Laws by which he ruleth: But, &c. therefore, &c. And therefore not under the mere Law of Works. The common Answer, [That he will judg the Devils,] is beside the business. He judgeth them as Captives, Enemies; but he judgeth all wicked men as Rebellious Subjects. It will not follow [He judgeth Foreign open Enemies as a Conqueror, and not as their King; therefore so he doth by Domestick Rebels:] All wicked men are Christ's Subjects de Jure, though not by Consent de Facto. They may have his Mercies also, though they know not him: As many are God's Subjects, and have his Mercies (as will be confessed) who yet know not God.
4. If all shall be judged at last, according to the well or ill-using of the Talents of Mercy, then not merely according the Law of Works: But the Antecedent is plain, Mat. 25. & Passim; therefore, &c. No Scripture that I know of, doth once intimate, that God will say at last to any men, [Go ye Cursed, because ye once sinned;] or merely, [because ye sinned,] but because ye sinned against Mercy that tended to Recovery. But much more might easily be said to this.
Rom. 2. 12. which you cite, hath not the least colour for your Assertion, that I can see. The Law was of narrower extent, as to its Promulgation and Obligation, than the Grace of the Mediator is: Where doth God say, As many as have sinned without Mercy or Grace (that is, Mercy contra Meritum) shall perish without Mercy, or Grace? That is it that you should prove. And as little is, 1. Thess. 1. 7, 8. to your purpose; which plainly speaketh of such as obey not the Gospel, and persecuted the Apostles: Or if it had not; yet it speaks of none that partaked not of the Mercies of the Mediator.
To that you say against the passage in my Append. p. 10. I reply, Adam should have suffered perpetual Misery (call it first or second Death, as you please:) But your Conjecture at a Probability from the Bodies co-partnership, is no proof. Is it not as probable, that the Body being the Souls Instrument, and acted by it, that everlasting Dissolution should have been its punishment, its nature being also more subject to Dissolution than the Souls; and that Dissolution being a real and grievous punishment? Doubtless it would have been a Privation of its Perfection, and that for sin, and therefore a punishment; and the Soul that was chief in sin, to have suffered perpetually, according to its more durable nature. Philosophers commonly say, It is only the Soul that feels, and so suffers now, and not the Body it self. And if so, then the Body would not suffer pain hereafter, but only the Soul in that Body. But I am glad you seem not to be of Twisse's opinion, that Melius est Miserum esse, quam non esse; or else you would not think it no punishment to the Body, to be for ever dissolved, while the Soul is tormented. But here I assert nothing, but only oppose Conjecture to Conjecture, waiting for your better proof, seeing you affirm. And,
2. Your second is a bare Affirmation, without one Scripture-proof, That Adam should have risen again. And,
3. But it follows, that seeing Scripture mentioneth no Resurrection but what is procured by Christ, that therefore it is to us uncertain, whether there should have been any. And if all should have risen, whether Christ had died and risen or not; then how will it appear, that any mans Resurrection was purchased by Christ? For whereas you distinguish of Resurrection to Life and to Death, that is not de Re, but de Consequente. Indeed the Life following that Resurrection is then from Christ; But what need he procure a Resurrection for them which should rise without his procurement? And for the Text, 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. I confess, the end of Paul was to confirm and comfort Believers; and therefore vers. 23. he applies it to them only: But it follows not therefore, that he speaks only of the Cause of their Resurrection. He seems to extend it to all that die in Adam; and many other Texts which I'le not now stand on, seem to say as much.
Aphorism.
YEt I doubt not, Weems his Interpretation Page 24.is the plain truth that the words, [From the foundation of the World] have reference to the [Writing of their names in the Book of Life] and not to the slaying of the Lamb, &c.
Animadvers.
So also Mr. Mede doth expound it: And the Explication is probable from Rev. 17. 8. But so also is the other Exposition from 1 Pet. 1. 19, 20.
Reply.
There is great difference between [Fore-ordaining] before the foundation of the World, and [Slaying] before it. However, as long as we are agreed of the matter of Doctrine in it, the matter is but small.
Aphorism.
IF we did perfectly Page 49.obey the Law in Christ (or Christ for us) according to that strict *What I mean by the Distinction of Imputation in strict and large sense, I must desire the Reader to see in Mr. Bradshaw of Justification, especially in the Epistle to the Engilsh Edition: For I hold the Imputation of Christ's Active Righteousness, as he doth, in the larger sense. See also my Life of Faith, and, Appeals to the Light, and, Dispute of Imputed Righteousness, since this written; besides my Dispute of Justification.Imputation, then there is no use for suffering for disobedience.
Animadvers.
Though I could never see any necessity of having Christ's Active Righteousness imputed to us, yet this Argument seems not forcible enough against it. For though we should perfectly obey the Law in Christ, that (I speak of obeying, actively) seems not sufficient to satisfie for our disobedience in Adam, but that in that respect suffering should be requisite.
Reply.
Hitherto your difference with me is small, in comparison of our agreements. And seeing you yield, that according to that Doctrine [of the strict Imputation of Christ's Active Righteousness] there is no need of his Satisfaction for any sin, but only Original. I need not trouble my self and you in driving the Argument higher, there being enow more, and this Consequence sufficing to destroy the said Doctrine of strict Imputation. And withal, you must remember, that on your own Supposition (which is, that Christ obeyed not nostro loco, as we were in Adam before the fall, or in the fall; which is true) it followeth, That therefore Christ's Active Imputed Righteousness (were there such a thing in duplicate page duplicate page the sense opposed) would be no sufficient perfect Righteousness to us: For it would not cover our unrighteousness Original, but only Actual. But I doubt you will make men angry with you, as they are with me, for your denying this Imputation of Active Righteousness: And yet I deny it less than you. For I judg that even Christ's Active Righteousness is for us, and so imputed to us quatenus Satisfactoria & quatenus Meritoria; as Mr. Bradshaw hath well opened it.
2. Yet I think that Christ's Satisfaction is here by them made needless. For did not Adam himself obey perfectly in Christ, according to that Doctrine. And then what need had Adam of Christ's Satisfaction. And do they not say, that Christ's Obedience is imputed to us, as it is a perfect Obedience pro omni tempore? and if so, then it must be a cover to our first disobedience in Adam, as well as to all that follows.
Aphor.
THough the Sufferings of Christ have Page 55.the chief place therein, yet his Obedience, as such, may also be Meritorious and Satisfactory.
Adnimadvers.
You mean his Active Obedience: For there is also Passive Obedience, as well as Active.
Reply.
I do mean all Obedience, as Obedience: For I suppose you mean Christ's Sufferings as Penal (when you call them the Satisfaction, and exclude the Active Righteousness) and not directly as Obedience: Though, no doubt, they must not be separated from the consideration of their being Voluntary and Obediential. But to tell you my thoughts, I think the phrase of [Passive Obedience] is very dark, if you understand it in the same near sense as you do [Active Obedience:] For all Obedience is so called formally, in reference to some Law or Command of a Superior to which we obey. Now Poena, or Suffering, is not the direct and proper matter of any Precept, as a Precept: The Law doth threaten Punishment, and not command it. Yet as Suffering is the remote matter, so it may be called, Passive Obedience; (that is, God commandeth us to submit to Sufferings.) Submission and Patience is the direct matter of Obedience; and Suffering the Remote: And therefore I will not quarrel with the phrase of [Passive Obedience.]
Aphorism.
ANd so Rom. 5. 19. By the Obedience Page 56.of one, many are made righteous.
Animadvers.
That place will evince nothing for you, because it may, and probably should be interpreted of Obedience by Suffering. He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, &c. Phil. 2. 8.
Reply.
1. But it seems to speak of Obedience, as Obedience: And then it is not much matter, whether the matter of it be doing, or suffering. For in Christ's suffering, if it were not only his suffering, as suffering or Penalty, but also as Obedience, which was Satisfactory: Then why may not his Active Obedience, as Obedience, also be Satisfactory? For à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia. However, there is the same formal Nature of Obedience in Active Obedience, as is in Passive. Nay, even Passive Obedience is more properly and nearly Active; and but improperly and remotely Passive. For the Act of Willing Submission, is that which is commanded, and is the materia proxima & propria of Obedience: The Penalty (as I said even now) is not commanded directly and properly, but threatned: And the pain, as pain, is but remotely the matter of Obedience, as the Object of our Patience.
2. And Rom. 5. 19. seemeth to include Active Obedience, as well as Passive: For it seems to intimate such Obedience as is opposed to Adam's Disobedience. However, it is such as is opposed to Disobedience in general, and therefore it is (as I said) Obedience qua talis, and not as Suffering.
Aphorism.
SOme Works he performed, which were Page 58.our duty indeed; but he was not bound to perform them in regard of himself: Such were all the Observances of the Ceremonial Law, &c.
Animadvers.
Christ taking upon him the form of a Servant, and being made under the Law, I see not but he was bound in all things to obey the Will of God, and to observe his Law.
Reply.
*Paraeus I suppose was as much as most against the Active Righteousness, a… such, being the m…ter of our Righteousness; and yet he concludeth, that Qui…quid deni{que} fecit & passus est ad quod ipse, tanquam Dei s…l…us, non fuit obligatus, est Satisfactio ejus, quam pro nolis praest…t, & justitia quae nobis credentibus à Deo gratis imputatur. Ea enim sati…fa…tio aequi pollet vel impletioni Leg… per obedientiam, vel pan… aeternae propter peccata; a… q…um alter…tr…m n…s lege obligamur. Ursin. Cat. q. 60. art. 4. p. 352. I take it as P…tr…us his judgment, as well as Ʋrsine's.No doubt of that: But, 1. The doubt is, Whether it were the Will of God, that any but sinners should be obliged by his Law to use those Ceremonies, which in their nature imply the Users to be sinners, and intimate a confession of sin, in ordinary performers; and in their end do tend to recovery from sin? And indeed, Christ did not perform these to the same ends as sinners did, and as they were mainly intended for such in their Institution.
2. I said he was not bound to perform them [in regard of himself:] that is, [finaliter, he was no sinner, and had no sin to pardon of his own, nor any sinful wants to be supplied; and so had not those ends of his own to move or necessitate him to use them, as others had:] But he used them, both to shew his subjection, and take up that burthen of tedious Ceremonious-Worship, which justly lay on us; and also to give us an example, &c.
3. It hence therefore follows, that seeing he used the actions (as Circumcision, Offerings, &c.) separated from their Legal ends, to other ends of his own, that his primary obligation to them was ex vi sponsionis propriae (as was all his obligation to suffer) and not ex Lege: (For else the Law would have obliged him to the Act and End together.) And then the Law did after oblige him upon his subjecting, and submitting himself voluntarily thereto; and that but limitedly and in part, so far as he submitted to it; that is, to the same Action, but not for the same Ends: Because it could not oblige him beyond that his undertaking, and voluntary submission. So that I conceive, if Christ had stood before God, only in the person of God man in Righteous…ess, he should have been obliged only to obey those Laws which belong to the Righteous, and have nothing either in the end of them, or burdensomness of them, which proceedeth from sin: But seeing Christ undertook to be in that low condition, and bear all that burden of poenal Actions, and direct Sufferings which sinners had subjected themselves to by sin; therefore he would be made under the Law, and so undertake those Legal performances. And therefore it is in respect of us; as the Ʋndertaker of our burden, that he used them; who otherwise, in respect of himself (though supposing him man) being perfectly righteous, should not have been obliged to those duties that were ordained for sinners, as sinners. This is my meaning: But for the thing, it being of no greater moment, I leave it to your better judgment, and will not contend.