if they had clave the Cart before the Ark was taken down which could not be In 2 Tim. 1.9 it is said God hath saved us and called us yet I suppose Mr. W. will not say That men are saved before they are called So though Vocation be set before Justification yet it doth not follow that it precedes it in order of Nature 2 The Apostles scope here is not to shew in what order these Benefits are bestowed upon us but how inseparably they are linked unto our Predestination and that it is Impossible either sin or affliction should make them miserable whom God hath chosen 3 I see no inconvenience at all in saying That the Apostle here speaks of Justification as it is declared and terminated in our Consciences which some learned men do make the formale of Justification and in this respect I shall grant him That Justification is a consequent of Vocation § 6. Mr. Woodbridges next Allegation is from Rom. 4.24 Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we believe Ergo It was not imputed before we did believe I answer That the consequence is not necessary for this Particle if is used sometimes declaratively It doth not always propound the condition by which a benefit is obtained but sometimes it serves to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong Descriptions are taken from Effects and Consequences as well as from the Causes or Antecedent Conditions As for instance If a man saith the Apostle purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honor 2 Tim. 2.21 The Papists infer from hence That a man is made a vessel of honor by purging himself c. Our Protestant Divines do answer That the place proves not that a man is hereby made or becomes a vessel of honor but that hereby he is manifested and known to be a vessel of honor So Heb. 3.6 Whose house are we if we hold fast our confidence and the rejoycing of the hope firm unto the end Which we are not to understand as if these things did make us to be the house of God but that hereby we appear and approve our selves to be the house of God This Conjunction if is many times annexed unto the Marks and Cognizances of such as shall be saved or are happy which do shew Non propter quid beand◠sunt vel servandi sed quales beati sunt quales servandi Not upon what conditions but what manner of persons are finally saved I see no reason but it may be so understood in this place his Righteousness is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us that we whether Jews or Gentiles are the persons to whom this grace belongs if God hath drawn our hearts to believe and obey the Gospel in regard that none do or can believe but such as are ordained to life and to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ. The Lord works Faith in none but in them to whom he hath imputed the Righteousness of his Son § 7. The other Scriptures he hath brought conclude as weakly against us as any of the former as Acts 10.43 Thorow his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins And Acts 26.18 That they may receive forgiveness of sins who are sanctified by Faith with Acts 13.39 By him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses To which says Mr. W. might be added multitudes of other places I confess his Concordance would have furnished him with many such places but no more to the purpose then these he hath cited which though they affirm That Believers are justified yet they deny not the Justification of the Elect before believing In the former it is Whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sins it is not By believing we obtain remission of sins or God doth not discount mens sins unto them till they do believe The giving of remission and the receiving of remission are two things the former is Gods act who is the onely Justifier the latter is ours the former is properly Justification and not the latter though it be called so in a passive and improper sence We know a Prince pardons a malefactor when he gives his consent That the Sentence of the Law should be reversed and confirms it with his Hand and Seal This Pardon is valid in Law and secures the offender from punishment though it come not to his hands for a good while after So a Father gives and bequeaths an Estate to his Childe that is an Infant which by the donation of the Father belongs to the Childe though the Childe do not receive and enjoy it till he comes to age So God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their sins unto them Though no man doth receive and enjoy this Grace till he doth believe we obtain remission of sins by Christ alone but we receive it by Faith § 8. In the 13 of the Acts 39 the Apostle shews the excellency of the Gospel above the Law or the priviledge of the Saints in the New Testament above them that lived under the Old Administration Who saith he are justified from all things c. There was a cleansing and purgation of sin provided in the Law but not like unto that which is revealed in the Gospel For 1 the Law did not cleanse them from all sins for some sins it allowed of no Sacrifice at all as for Blasphemy sins of presumption c. But now the Blood of that Sacrifice which is exhibited in the Gospel cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 Mark 3.28 2 Those Sacrifices made them clean but in an External Typical manner as To the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9.13 they could not make them perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 10.12 Whereas the cleansing which is made by the Blood of Christ is Spiritual and Internal It purgeth mens consciences from dead works Heb. 9.14 They that are purged herewith have no more conscience of sin de jure if not de facto Chap. 10.2 They have the answer of a good conscience toward God q. d. They can plead not guilty 1 Pet. 3.21 3 The legal cleansing was by Sacrifice after Sacrifice Heb. 10.3 Whereas Christ by one Sacrifice once offered hath taken away all the sins of his people or as it is in Daniel hath made an end of sin So that here is nothing at all of the time of our Justification though he affirms That they that believe are thus perfectly justified yet it follows not from this or any other Text That the Elect are not justified before they believe and much less That a man is justified by the gratious act or habit of Faith § 9. Mr. W. Pag. 2. gives his Reader our Sence of these Scriptures The onely Answer saith he which is given to these and the like Texts is this That
of the Act or of the Object of Faith We have shewed before that the Apostle in his disputes about Justification in these fore-mentioned Epistles where he opposeth Faith to Works he takes Faith in a Tropical sense for the Object and not the Act of Faith for else there had been no ground for him to make any opposition at all between Faith and Works and in affirming That we are justified by Faith he had contradicted himself in saying That we are not justified by Works seeing Faith or the Act of Believing is a work of ours no less then love And therefore it is evident that the Apostle when he concludes That we are justified by Faith and not by Works understands by Faith the Object thereof to wit Righteousness imputed and not inherent which by way of distinction and opposition to the other he calls the Righteousness of God because it is out of us in Christ God-man The reason why the Apostle calls the Object by the name of the Act Christs Righteousness by the name of Faith besides the elegancy of the Trope is because Faith ascribes all unto Christ it being an act of self-dereliction a kinde of holy despair a denying and renouncing of all fitness and worthiness in our selves a going unto Christ looking towards him and a roulling of our selves upon his Alsufficiency So that in the Apostles sense we deny not That Faith justifieth in the sight of God Faith I say taken objectively to wit For Christ and his Righteousness it is for his Merits and Satisfaction alone that we are accounted Just and Righteous at Gods Tribunal But if Faith be taken properly for the Act of Believing we say indeed That it onely evidenceth that Justification which we have in Christ. Nor is this any contradiction to the Holy Ghost who ascribes our Justification in the sight of God to Chrâ—st alone § 2. Next he calls it A most unsound Assertion That Faith doth evidence our Justification before Faith Is the Apostles definition of Faith Heb. 11.1 Faith is the evidence of things not seen An unsound Assertion Though some do ascribe more to Faith then an Act of evidencing yet I never met with any one before that did totally deny this use thereof All the knowledge that we have of our Justification is onely by Faith seeing it cannot be discerned by Sence or Reason either we have no evidence of our Justification and consequently do live without hope or if we have it is Faith that doth evidence it to our souls Now let our Justification be when it will if Faith doth evidence it it will follow That our Justification was before that Evidencing act of Faith for actuâ— pendet ab objecto the Object is before the Act. But I will not anticipate Mr. Woodbridges Reasons § 3. If sayes he Faith doth evidence our Justification it is either improperly as an effect doth argue the cause as laughing and crying may he said to evidence reason in a Childe c. Or else properly and thus either immediately and axiomatically or remotely and syllogistically 1 Faith doth not evidence Justification improperly as the Effect doth argue the Cause I shall readily grant him that Faith doth not justifie evidentially as a mark sign or token but as a knowledge and adherence unto Christ our Justifier as that Organ or Instrument whereby we look not upon our Faith but upon Christ our Righteousness and by the same Faith do cleave unto him They that make Faith a condition of our Justification use it but as a sign or as an argument affected to prove That a person is justified seeing that where one is the other is also where there is Faith there is Justification and for this cause innumerable other signs and marks are brought in to evidence this sign which are more obscure and difficult to be known then Faith it self nay which cannot be known to be effects of Blessedness but by Faith whereby poor souls either walk in darkness live in a doubting and uncertain condition all their days or else compass themselves about with sparks of their own kindling and walk in the light of their own fire fetching their comfort from Faith and not by Faith from Christ. Though I might fairly pass by this Branch of his Dilemma it being none of my Tenent and favored more by his own then my opinion yet I shall briefly give my fence of his Reasons That Faith doth not evidence Justification as a sign § 4. His first Reason is because then Justification by Faith would not necessarily be so much as Justification in our Consciences A Christian may have Faith and yet not have the evidence that he himself is justified Many Christians have that in them which would prove them justified whiles yet their Consciences do accuse and condemn them To which I Answer 1. That Mr. W. may be pleased to consider how well this agrees with that passage of his Pag. 15. Where he alledgeth the words of the Apostle 1 John 3.20 to prove That if our hearts do condemn us God doth much more condemn us 2. I should grant him That if Faith did evidence our Justification onely as a sign or some remote effect thereof like other works of Sanctification it would be but a dark and unsatisfying evidence 3. Whereas he sayes That doubting Christians have something in them that would prove them justified either it is something that precedes Faith or something that follows Faith or else Faith it self First Nothing that precedes Faith doth prove a man justified secondly Nothing that follows Faith is so apt to prove it as Faith it self because it is the first of all Inherent Graces it is by Faith that we know our Love Patience c. to be Fruits unto God whereas some make doubting to be a sign of Faith they may as well make darkness a sign of light it being in its own nature contrary thereunto and therefore it must be proved by Faith it self 4. Though a true Christian may have a doubting accusing Conscience as doubtless there is flesh and corruption in their Consciences as well as in their other faculties and there is no sin whereunto we have more and stronger temptations then to unbelief yet wheresoever there is Faith there is some evidence of this Grace as in the least spark of fire there is light though not so much as in a flame And the least twinkling Star gives us some light though not enough to dispel the darkness or to make it day There are several degrees of Faith there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strong Faith and a weak Faith Now the least degree of Faith carries some light and evidence therewith and according to the measure of Faith is the evidence and perswasion of our Justification § 5. Secondly He urgeth If Faith did evidence Justification as an effect of it then we might as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to
therefore his suggestion in the Minor Proposition That we interpret the phrase of Justification by Faith meerly of Justification in Conscience is false and groundless But let us weigh the force of his Argument a little more distinctly the sum of it then is this Justification by Faith is not Justification in our Consciences for then we should be concurrent Causes with God in the formal act of our Justification The formal act of pronouncing us just must be attributed unto us which the Scripture attributes unto God alone making us but passive therein Rom. 8.33 4.6 8. To which I answer That the pronouncing of us just is not the formal act of Justification but the imputing of Righteousness and the non-imputing of sin which is the act of God alone whereas the pronouncing of us just and righteous is in Scripture attributed to others besides God and yet no robbery is done to God As for instance the Minister of Christ pronounceth the Word of Grace and Forgiveness and therefore is said to remit and forgive sin Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Joh. 20.23 Is he therefore joyned with God in the formal act of Justification Yet all Protestants grant him the office of pronouncing Remission though they deny him the power of giving Real Remission which would make him arrogate that which is peculiar unto God So though we say That Faith doth declare and reveal to our Consciences the sentence of Absolution yet we do not thereby derogate from God or attribute that to Faith which belongs to God We grant that as to our Justification in the sight of God which is properly Justification we are meerly Passive we contribute nothing at all either Physically or Morally by way of Merit or Motive That God should account us righteous and not impute to us our sins This work was done without us and for us by Christ with his Father it hath no other cause but the Grace of God and the Merit of Christ. He and he alone purged and washed us from our sins in his own blood Revel 1.5 Heb 1.3 Now in regard of our Passiveness in this act of our Justification we say That Faith hath no hand at all in procuring obtaining and instating us in this Grace for if we did any thing though never so little in order to this end we were not Passive but Active Yet we say That as this gracious sentence of our Justification is revealed and terminated in our own Consciences so Faith hath an Instrumental efficacy we are therein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agents with God 2 Cor. 6.1 And the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beareth witness with our spirits Rom. 8.16 And therefore though we are no where exhorted to justifie or to make our selves righteous in the sight of God yet we are oftentimes bid to grow in Faith and to press forward to more assurance in believing our peace and reconciliation with God 2 Pet. 1.5 3.18 Rom. 5.1 § 14. This Concession of Mr. W. That a man is wholly Passive in his Justification gave occasion to the first Argument I offered to his consideration it being as I conceive a flat contradiction to the cheif scope and intendment of his Sermon which was to derive to Faith at least a Federal or Moral causality in our Justification I am sorry I should have so much cause to complain of his injurious dealing not onely in that unworthy language he is pleased to give me but in casting my Argument into another form then that wherein I proposed it In his report it runs thus If we were altogether Passive in being justified then we are justified before we believe In which form I confess it is obnoxious to more exceptions then one for besides the Grammatical part which is very harsh the Logical consequence may be justly blamed Though the consequent be true yet it is not a true consequence it is not rightly inferred from the Antecedent Though we are Passive in our Justification yet it doth not follow from thence That we were justified before we believed A man is Passive in the first act of his Conversion yet it were absurd to conclude therefore a man was converted before he had a Being or ever heard of the Gospel But the Argument as I proposed it was as followeth If we are wholly passive in our Justification then our Faith doth not concur to the obtaining of it or we are not justified by the act of Faith in the sight of God But according to you we are wholly Passive in our Justification Ergo Faith doth not concur unto our Justification or we are not justified by the act of Faith His Answer hereunto I could not very well heed by reason of my distance from him and the rudeness of some people who do go for Professors that stood about me but as I conceived it was to this effect That Faith doth necessarily concur to the Application of this Priviledge whereunto I replied But the Application of this Benefit is not Justification the one being Gods act the other ours His Answer in Print we are sure is authentick let us see therefore how well he hath now quitted himself from the guilt of this contradiction 1. He calls the Argument A childish Exception a peece of witchery and wonders it should proceed out of my mouth I must confess I cannot but wonder to hear such language from a civil man much more from a Minister and more especially from one who hath sometimes owed me more respect let the prudent judge whether there be any ground for this hideous clamor 2. He shapes some kinde of answer to the Sequel That though Faith be a formal vital act of the soul in genere Physico yet the use of it in Justification is but to qualifie us passively that we may be morally capable of being justified by God And again Faith is required on our part which though Physically it be an act yet Morally it is but a Passive condition by which we are made capable of being justified according to the Order and Constitution of God Now here 1. I shall desire the Reader to observe how much Mr. W. is beholding to a Popish Tenent opposed by all our Protestant Writers to support his cause which is That Faith goes before Justification to dispose us for it c. Bellarmine undertakes to prove that Faith doth not justifie alone because there are other things to wit fear hope love penitency a desire of the Sacraments and a purpose of amendment of life all which sayes the Jesuite doe prepare and dispose a man for Justification as well as Faith Against whom all our Protestant Divines which my little Library hath obtained do unanimously affirme That Faith doth not dispose or prepare us for Justâ—fication Now were they all bewitched as well as we who would not subscribe to this Popish Dictate 2. I shall leave it to the Reader to judge whether my Argument or his Answer doth deserve
Justification then God who made onely a conditional grant notwithstanding which he might have perished but he by performing the condition makes the grant to be absolute And truly sayes the same Author whosoever makes Faith the condition of the New Covenant in such a sense as perfect Obedience was the condition of the Old cannot avoid it but that man is justified chiefly by himself and his own acts not so much by Gods Grace in imputing Christs Righteousness but more by his own Faith which is his own act though of Gods work God by making his supposed gracious conditional promise doth not justifie any man for that makes no difference at all amongst persons It remains therefore that man must be said to justifie himself for where there is a promise of a Reward made to all upon condition of performing such a service he that obtains the reward gets it by his own service without which the promise would have brought him never a whit the nearer to the Reward Thus a man justifies himself by believing more a great deal then God justifies him by his promulgation of the conditional promise which would have left him in his old condition had not he better provided for himself by believing then God by promising as in the old Covenant it was not Gods threat that brought death upon the world just so in the new if it be a conditional promise it is not the promise that justifies a believer but the believer himself § 7. Mr. W. may as well call the Blood of Christ a Passive condition in our Justification because it did not make the Law nor pronounce the sentence of Absolution let the indifferent Reader consider whether this be not I will not say a childish but an impertinent answer which draws his former Concession quite aside from the matter now under debate for the question is not whether man did concur in making the Law and Rule of his Justification but whether he hath any causal influx in producing the effect or whether before Justification he can or doth perform any condition to which God hath infallibly promised this Grace Which if granted will conclude That he is not Passive but Active in his Justification when our Protestant Divines say That a man is Passive in his first Conversion Their meaning is That he can perform no condition at all to which God hath inseparably annexed the Grace of Conversion So Cameron expresseth their sense and meaning Vocatio nullam poscit in objecto conditionem For though a man before conversion do perform many natural acts which have a remote tendency to this effect as Hearing Reading Meditating c. yet for all we say He is Passive therein because these are not such conditions to which God hath promised saving Grace So though a man doth never so many natural acts or duties whereunto God hath not immediately promised this priviledge he is but Passive for all in his Justification but if he do perform any condition to which Justification is promised then he is active and consequently may be said to justifie himself § 8. But says Mr. W. We do no more justifie our selves then we do glorifie our selves it is God alone doth both and we are Passive in both Pag 8. And again It is God that glorifies us and not we our selves yet surely God doth not glorifie us before we believe Pag. 10. First I shall readily grant him that we do neither justifie nor glorifie our selves seeing that we obtain neither of these benefits by our own works From the very beginning to the end of our Salvation nothing is primarily or causally Active but Free-grace all that we receive from God is gift and not debt Glory it self is not wages but Grace For though it be called The recompence of Reward Heb. 11.27 yet that is not to be understood in a proper sense as when the Reward is for the Work which may be two ways First When the work is proportionable to the wages as when a Laborer receives a shilling for a days work here the work doth deserve the wages because the work doth him that payes the wages as much good as the wages doth the worker Now surely no reward can come from the Creator to the Creature in this way bâ—cause no man can do any work that is profitable unto God Psal. 16.2 Job 22.3 35.8 Rom. 11 35. The very Papists will not say that Glory is a reward in this sense Works saith Bishop Gardner do not deserve Salvation as a Workman deserveth his wages for his labor Secondly When the work is not answerable to the wages but yet the wages is due by promise upon the performance of it as when a poor man hath twenty shillings for an hours labor though the work be not worth it yet is it a due debt and he may challenge it as such because it was promised him In this sense neither is Glory a Reward for under the New Covenant Blessedness is not to him that worketh but to him that worketh not Rom. 4.5 We are saved by grace and not by works Tit. 3.5 Eph. 2.5 8. And saith the Apostle If by grace then it is no more of works Rom. â—1 6 But when Glory is called a Reward we are to understand it improperly as when a thing is called a Reward onely by way of Analogy and Resemblance because it comes after and in the place of the work as the nights rest may be called the Reward of the days labor because it succeeds it Thus is that of the Apostle to be taken 2 Thes. 1.7 And thus the Heir inheriting his Fathers Lands hath a Recompence or Reward of all the labor and service he hath done for his Father although he did not his service to that end neither doth the enjoyment of that inheritance hang upon that condition In this sense Eternal Lâ—fe and Glory may be called the Reward of our Works because it is a consequent of them not that our works have any influence either Physical or Moral to obtain it All things being given us in and for Christ alone Rom. 8.32 Eph. 1.3 And therefore it is called by the Apostle A reward of Inheritance Col. 3.24 Which comes to us not by working but by inheritance as we are the heirs of God and joynt heirs with Christ. If Glory were a Reward in a proper sense we might properly be said to save and glorifie our selves because we concurred to the Production of this effect but Mr. W. sayes well It is God that glorifies us Eternal Life is called his gift in opposition to wages Rom. 6.23 2 Tim. 4.8 It is solely the effect of Gods grace and Christs purchase though God doth glorifie us after working yâ—t not for any of those works which we have wrought though by the help and assistance of his own Spirit § 9. But yet secondly Though God doth not glorifie us before we believe yet it will not follow that he doth not justifie
Explication of the Epistle to the Ephesians upon those words Chap. 2.5 He hath quickned us together with Christ says That all the Elect who are the Members of Christ when he by his death had expiated their sins were freed from the guilt of eternal death and obtained a right to eternal life Chamier hath much to this purpose Nobis potius est persuasissimum c. We are most certainly perswaded that our sins are pardoned before we do believe for we deny that Infants do believe and yet Infants have their sins forgiven And a little before viz. Chap. 6. of the same Book I deny saith he that Faith is the cause of our Justification for then our Justification would not be of Grace but of our selves but Faith is said to justifie not because it effecteth Justification but because it is effected in the justified person And in another place to the same purpose Faith doth neither merit obtain nor begin our Justification for if it did then Faith should go before Justification both in nature and time which may in no wise be granted for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification now there is no Sanctification but after Justification Quae re natura prior which is really and in its own nature before it Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier saith That Faith concurs no otherwise to Justification then in respect of the passive application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ unto himself but not in respect of the active application whereby God applieth unto man the Righteousness of Christ which application is in the minde of God and consequently from eternity Dr. Macouvius Professor of Divinity at Franeka hath a whole Determination to this purpose to prove that Justificacation actively considered or as it is the act of God blotting out our sins and imputing the Righteousness of Christ unto us goes before Faith Indeed he makes it to be not an immanent but a transient declared act which the Lord did when he first promised to send his Son to be our Mediator Gen. 3.15 Though one of our late Writers mentions this Doctors Opinion with much contempt and oscitancy calling his Assertions Strange senceless and abhorred which is the less to be regarded seeing he usually metes out the same measure unto all men else whose notions do not square with his own mould as to Dr. Twisse Mr. Walker and them that hold the imputation of Christs active Righteousness whom he calls A sort of ignorant and unstudied Divines c. Yet as he hath merited fairer usage amongst Christians for his other Labors So I dare say his Arguments in this particular will not seem so weak and ridiculous as Mr. Baxter maâ—â— them to an indifferent Reader that shall compare them with the Exceptions which he hath shaped unto them sharp Censures are but dull Answers Dr. Ames his Colâ—eague sayes no less who in his Marrow of Divinity having defined Justification to be the gracious Sentence of God by which he doth acquit us from sin and death and account us Righteous unto life he sayes That this sentence was long before in the minde of God and was pronounced when Christ our Head arose from the dead 2 Cor. 5.19 And in another place All they for whom Christ in the intention of God hath made satisfaction are reconciled unto God I might produce many others that are of eminent note who have asserted That all the Elect are reconciled and justified before they believe Now were all these Champions of Truth a pack of Antinomians and Libertines Hath Mr. Woodbridges humanity no better language to bestow upon them If he shall say he doth not mean them yet his reproaches do fall upon them for if Titius be an Antinomian for saying That the Elect are justified before they do believe Sempronius is an Antinomian who affirms the same § 6. Mr. Burges a man somewhat profuse in this kinde of Rhetorick seems willing to excuse some of those fore-mentioned Divines who have asserted the Remission of sins before Faith because they did it in a particular sence to oppose the Arminians who maintain a reconciliability and not a reconciliation by the death of Christ. But I believe he is not ignorant that Divine Truths are not to be measured by mens intentions let mens ends be never so good they cannot make Error to be Truth or if they are never so corrupt they cannot make Truth to be Error Nor do they whom he calls Antinomians assert Justification before Faith in any other sence then in respect of the absolute and immutable Will of God not to deal with his people according to their sins and in respect of the full satisfaction of Jesus Christ who by that one offering of himself hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified i. e. them whose sins are purged by his blood I could shew how frequently he and others have wounded some of our most eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety through the sides of Antinomians Mr. Burges in his Book of Justif. p. 219. calls it An Antinomian Similitude to say That as a man looking on the Wall through Red Glass conceives the Wall to be of the same colour so God looking upon us in Christ seeth nothing but the Righteousness of Christ in us and no sin at all Which Similitude is used by Dr. Reynolds in his Excellent Treatise on the 110 Psalm where he doth plainly assert that Doctrine which Mr. Burges condemns for Antinomianism Mr. Baxters Character of an Antinomian will bring all our Protestant Writers under this censure For with him they are Antinomians who hold 1 That our Evangelical Righteousness is without us in Christ or performed by him and not by our selves Or 2 That Justification is a free act of God without any condition on our part for the obtaining of it Or else 3 That Justification is an Immanent act and consequently from eternity which was the Judgement of Alsted Pemble Twisse Rutherford c. Or 4 That we must not perform duty for Life and Salvation but from Life and Salvation or that we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation the end of our endeavors but obey in thankfulness and because we are justified and saved c. Now let any man who is moderately versed in our Protestant Writers but speak on whom this Arrow falls I might instance in many others but I will not put the Reader unto so much trouble § 7. My business at present is to acquit this Doctrine of Justification in foro Dei before Faith from Mr. Woodbridges charge of Antinomianism And truly I wonder that he should give it this name For 1. It hath not the least affinity with the Antinomian Tenents which as they are related by Sleiden were That the Law is not to be Preached to bring men to Repentance or unto the sight of their sins That what ever a mans life be
us totally passive in this work Rom. 3.24 26. 8.33 Eph. 2.8 We can no more justifie our selves then raise our selves from the dead Eph. 2.1 5. or then we could give our selves a being when as yet we were not Vers 10. Man is so far from being the total or principal Cause of his Justification that he is no cause at all by ascribing the least causality or efficiency to man in his Justification we derogate from the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. § 4. Others do take Faith in a proper sence as the Papists Socinians and Remonstrants amongst whom though there be some difference in Expression yet they all agree in this That by Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith is meant the act or habit of Faith or such a Faith as is accompanied with faithful Actions The Papists say That Faith and other inherent Graces though in their own nature they do not deserve Justification yet through the merits of Christ and Gods gracious acceptance they do procure and obtain the forgiveness of our sins Though they ascribe a meritoriousness to Faith it is but in a qualified sence Faith saith Bellarmine doth but Suo quidem modo mereri remissionem after a manner merit remission scil By vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant who hath annexed forgiveness unto this condition If a King saith he doth promise a Beggar a thousand pound a year upon no condition then indeed the Beggar doth not deserve it but if it be upon condition that he do some small matter as to come and fetch it or to bring him a Posie of flowers then he doth deserve it because the promiser is bound unto performance And in this sence Mr. B. ascribes a meritoriousness to works But the chief difference between them and us lies in this We say a man is justified by the imputation of Christs Righteousness they That we are justified by inherent Righteousness or by doing of Righteous Actions such as are Faith Love Fear c. Ipsa fides in Christum saith Bellarmine est justitia Faith it self is our righteousness And that it doth justifie us impetrando promerendo inchoando â—ustificationem Arminius and the Remonstrants though they have exploded the word merit yet they attribute as much to Faith and faithful Actions as the Papists themselves Dico saith Arminius ipsum fidei actum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputari in justitiam idquè sensu proprio non metonymicè The very same is affirmed by Vorstius Bertius Episcopius and the rest of the Remonstrants Their Opinion in brief is this That God in the Legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to perform Which say they is procured by the merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect faith to be perfect Righteousness § 5. Some of our late Divines who seem to disclaim the Doctrine of the Papists and Arminians say the very same who explain themselves to this effect That Faith doth justifie as a condition or antecedent qualification by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God The fulfilling of which condition say they is our Evangelical Righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God Mr. B. is so fond of this notion That although in one place he findes fault with the length of our Creeds and Confessions yet he would have this made an article of our Creed a part of our Childrens Catechisms and to be believed by every man that is a Christian so apt are we to smile upon our own Babes Though I honor Mr. Baxter for his excellent parts yet I must suspend my assent to his new Creed I shall prove anon That Faith is not said to justifie as an antecedent condition which qualifies us for Justification but at present I shall onely render him the Reasons of my disbelief Why I cannot look upon Faith as that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified I shall not insist upon it though it be not altogether unconsiderable that this notion is guilty of too much confederacy with the aforenamed enemies of the Christian Faith for though it is no good Argument to say That Papists Socinians c. do hold this or that therefore it is not true yet it will follow That such and such Tenents have been held by Papists c. and unanimously opposed by our Protestant Writers therefore they ought to be the more suspected and especially such Tenents of theirs as are the cheif points in difference between us and them as this is Our Brethren that have started this notion do take Faith as the others do in a proper sence they attribute as much to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere as Bellarmine Arminius or any other Faith it self says Mr. B. is our Righteousness There was never any Papist so absurd as to say That our Faith Love c. are perfect Legal Righteousness but that God judicio misericordiae non justitiae doth account and accept of it instead of perfect Righteousness For my part I must confess that I can see no dâ—fference between them but in Expression The Papists do acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ and that he is the meritorious cause of our Justification They say indeed That we are not justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed but by a Righteousness inherent in us or righteous actions performed by us And what do our Brethren say less less then this But I shall not follow the Parallel any further § 6. The Reasons which turn the Scales of my Judgement against this notion That our Faith or Faithful Actions are that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified Are 1. If we are not justified by our own works then our believing c. is not that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified but we are not justified by our own works Ergo. The Assumption is written with a Sun beam throughout the Scripture Tit. 3.5 Not by works of Righteousness which we have done Rom. 11.6 If it be of Works then were Grace no more Grace It is the cheif scope of the Apostle throughout this and the Epistle to the Galatians to prove That we are not justified by works The sequel of the Proposition is as evident Because Faith and Obedience to Gospel Precepts are our works It is man that believes and obeys and not God though we do them by his help and assistance yet they are our acts or works so that consequently we are not justified by them in the sight of God The Papists to elude the force of this Argument say That the minde of the Apostle was onely to exclude from Justification works of Nature and not of Grace works which we our selves do by our own strength without the help
be justified by our Faith I see no absurdity at all to say That Faith is from Justification causally and Justification by Faith evidentially That Grace which justifies us is the Cause and Fountain of all good things whatsoever both of Spiritual and Temporal Blessings and more especially of Faith 2 Pet. 1.1 Phil. 1.29 Yet doth it not follow That We must invert the order of the Gospel and instead of saying Believe and thou shalt be justified we must say hence forward Thou art justified therefore believe 1 Because it is not the priviledge of all men to whom we Preach but onely of the Elect of God And 2 because we know not who are justified no more then who are elected though Faith be an effect or sign of Election yet it doth not follow that we must say to any Thou art elected therefore believe 3 When the cause is not notior effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause as in the present case § 6. Thirdly He loads it with this seeming absurdity That then it will unavoidably follow That we are justified by works as well as by Faith for works are an effect of Justification as well as Faith 1 It follows unavoidably from his own opinion For if Faith be taken in a proper sence for the Act of Believing it follows That we are justified by a work of our own or if Faith be the condition of Justification it will follow likewise That we are no more justified by Faith then by other works as Repentance Charity c. Which Mr. W. and others of his strain do make the conditions of their supposed Justification so that he is like to father the Childe which he hath sought to lay at our doors 2 It is not denied That Works do declare and evidence our Justification where the Apostle denies our Justification to be by Works he speaks of our real and formal Justification in the sight of God which he affirms is by Faith scil Objectively taken and not of the declaring or evidencing of our Justification which Saint James in his Epistle attributes to Works in reference to men and other Scriptures to Faith in reference to the Conscience of the person justified Romans 1.17 Galatians 2.16 3 Though works be the effect of justification as well as faith yet it will no follow that works do evidence our justificationas well as faith doth 1 Because every effect is not apt to evidence its cause especially when the same effect may proceed from severall causes as smoak is not so certaine an evidence of fire as light and heat is because steems and mists are so like to smoak so works do not evidence our justification so clearly and certainly 〈◊〉 Faith doth because works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality c. as those Heathens have performed 2 Because every effect doth not evidence to every faculty a like but this to one and that to another as for instance forme or Physiognomy doth evidence a man to sence but yet reason requires another manner of evidence so conscience requires a better evidence of our justification then works can give Workâ— do evidence it in the judgement of charity and before men but they do not evidence it in the judgement of infallibility or with that clearnesse and demonstrative certainty which the conscience requires conscience will need a better evidence then works can give Paul could plead his works before men 2 Cor. 1.12 which yet he never mentions in the pleas of his conscience towards God and that which conscience dares not plead before God can bee no good evidence unto conscience § 7. The other horn of his Dilemma will be frayd as easily as the former Faith saith he doth not evidence justification properly for then it must doe it either immediately and Axiomatically as it is an assent to this Proposition I am justified or else remotely and syllogistically by drawing a particular conclusion of our own justification out of generall propositions But Faith doth not evidence our justification Axiomatically c. For 1 There is no such thing written the Scripture doth no where say Thou Paul thou Peter or thou Thomas art justified Ergo Justification cannot be evidenced by Faith immediately Mr. W. here mistakes the nature of true justifying Faith who it seems conceives it to be a bare intellectuall assent to the truth of a Proposition such as Devils and Reprobates may attaine unto contrary to all Orthodox Divines who doe place Faith more in the Will then in the Understanding Justifying Faith essentially include 1. An assent of the understanding to the truth of the Scriptures revealing the sole-sufficiency of Christ for the reconciliation of sinners and the non-imputation of sin as also the will and command of God that all men should beleeve in him alone for life and salvation 2 a Fiduciall adherence and reliance of the will upon the same Christ the understanding being made effectually to assent and subscribe to the fore-mentioned propositions sub ratione veri the will is also powerfully drawne to accept imbrace and adhere unto Christ sub natione boni Our Divines doe include both these acts in the definition of Faith making it to be fiducialis assensus or assensus cum gustu such an assent unto the truths of the Gospell as that withall the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same and thereupon â—esteth and relieth upon Christ for all the benefits of his death They make the principall act of Faith to be the reliance of the heart or wil upon Jesus Christ and therefore they determine that the object of Justifying Faith is not a Proposition or Axiom but Christ the mercy of God in Christ on whom whosoever rests and roules himselfe upon the call of the Gospel hath a certain evidence of his Interest in Christ and in all the treasures of righteousnesse and remission that are in him according to the degree of his affiance or his taste of sweetnesse in Christ is his evidence or assurance of his owne interest and propriety in him There is no sense that doth apprehend its object with more certainty then that of Tasting as he that tastes hony knows both the sweetnesse thereof and that he himselfe injoyes it So he that tastes the sweetnesse of the Gospell Promises and of that precious Grace which is therein revealed knows his interest and propriety therein It is observed of Jonathan 1 Sam. 14.27 When he tasted a little hony his eyes were inlightned and the Psalmist exhorts us to taste and see how good the Lord is The soule that tastes i. e. beleeves the Gospell and the goodnesse of God therein revealed to sinners sees and knowes his interest therein for all manner of sweetnesse is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing that causeth it unto which the nearer our interest is the greater is the sweetnesse which we find in it The Soul cannot taste
deserted a Congregation in New England whereof he was Pastor to become a Parish Parson in the Old and not onely so but hath stood to maintaine that Parishes are true Churches It is like Barford in Old England is if not a purer Church yet a better Parsonage then Andover in the New We are not much beholding to New England for such Reformers 2 If we may judge of a mans principles by his practise we should then believe that he himself holds Universal Justification at least within the bounds of his own Parish for as I am informed he makes no distinction at all in this behalf I am ashamed to hear men to talk of Reformation who tread Antipodes to it especially when they have liberty to follow the dictates of their Consciences But 3 I had thought he had known that de occultis non judicat ecclesia and that Election and Justification are not the rule of admitting persons into Church Communion but their found Profession and suitable Conversation A Reprobate or unjustified person may lawfully be admitted into and an Elect person may as lawfully be excluded out of a Church I dare not say That the excommunicated person at Corinth and others under that censure were not justified The evidence we have of mens Justification is but the judgement of rational charity and not of infallibility But enough of this I shall return again to his Brother B. W. who I suppose will not own such irrational consequences § 11. The other part of his contradiction is That Faith cannot evidence Justification Syllogistically to wit By the discourse of Conscience after this or the like manner He that believeth is justified but I believe Ergo I am justified Now says Mr. W. magisterially enough I affirm that it is impossible for a man by Faith to evidence syllogistically that he is justified before Faith Though I honor him highly I cannot rest satisfied with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what Reason doth he bring for his confident affirmation 1. Because there cannot be found a medium before Faith it self Ans. Nor is it needful there should 1 It is sufficient that Faith itself is the medium as thus He that believeth was justified before Faith but I do believe Ergo. The Major is proved because his sins were laid on Christ and thereby non-imputed to him 2 To imagine any other medium before Faith is frivolous for that were to require that Faith should evidence before Faith had a being 3 Why may not Faith be a medium to evidence our Justification before Faith as well as our Election before Faith Seeing the same word which affirms That all Believers were elected before the Foundations of the World affirms also That the Elect without exception are discharged and acquitted of their sins Rom. 8.33 Shall we reason thus Our Election cannot be evidenced before Faith Ergo We were not elected before Faith Mr. Woodbridges Arguing makes as much against evidencing Election before Faith as against the evidencing of our Justification before Faith Because there is no sort of persons of whom ELECTION can be affirmed universally but onely such as do believe seeing all the world is distributed into Believers and unbelievers but ELECTION cannot be affirmed of unbelievers universally It proves indeed That neither Election nor Justification are evident to us before we believe it doth not prove That by Faith we cannot evidence syllogistically that we were both elected and justified before we did believe As for that mad Syllogism as he calls it which follows All unbelievers are justified but I am an unbeliever Ergo. It is the off-spring of his own brain hatcht on purpose to make the matter ridiculous But we must excuse the luxuriousness of his wit seeing Nullum est magnum ingenium sine mixtura insaniae His other Syllogism which he hath framed to evidence Justification by Election as thus All the Elect are justified But I am elected Ergo was framed in the same mould A meer man of clouts which he himself created to shew his valor in beating of him We do not teach men to evidence Justification by Election but both Election and Justification by their Faith proceeding from the Effect to the Cause as we needs must when the Effect is more evident then the Cause Though I like not the Argument yet by his leave the Major is so far from being utterly false that it is justified by the express Testimony of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 But this is besides the purpose That miserable circle into which he pretends the poor restless doubting soul is conjured by our Doctrine is but a vertigo and whimsie in his own Pericrany We do neither bid men evidence their Justification by their Election nor their Election by their Justification but both Election and Justification by a stedfast adherence and reliance upon Jesus Christ and from thence to reason out our particular interest in these Blessed Priviledges as we do the Being of Causes by the proper Effects which flow from them § 12. His next Argument against Faiths evidencing Justification syllogistically if it be put into the scale of an impartial Judgement will appear as light as the former It runs thus If we are said to be justified by Faith because Faith doth evidence Justification syllogistically then we may be said to be justified by Sence and Reason as well as by Faith which is absurd This Consequence indeed is very absurd for the conclusion is of Faith and so adjudged by the Schools if the Major be of Faith else this conclusion I shall rise again from the dead were not of Faith because it is inferred partly by Sence and Reason as thus All men shall rise again I am a man Ergo I shall rise again Here the Major onely is of Faith the Minor is of Sence and yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith and not of Sence So in this Syllogism He that believes is justified But I do believe Ergo I am justified Though the Assumption be an act of Sence or spiritual Experience yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith because the Major is of Faith For though in both these Deductions Sence and Reason are made use of yet they are but subfervient Instruments and not the Authors of the Conclusion § 13. Mr. W. hath added a third Argument to prove That Justification by Faith is not meerly a Justification in our Consciences which I question not will prove as unsuccessful as the rest But by the way I cannot chuse but take notice that his spirit of contradiction is somewhat allayed For hitherto he hath contended That Justification by Faith is not in any sence a Justification in Conscience now he tells us it is not meerly a Justification in Conscience and if this will satisfie him it is like we shall agree for before we have shewn that when Faith is objectively taken Justification by Faith is Justification by Christ and in the sight of God and not onely in the Conscience And
rased out those Scriptures which ascribe our Justification unto Christ alone For my own part I see no such cause he hath to triumph unless it be in the dejection of those feeble consequences which he himself hath devised to make our Doctrine odious which we have shewn before are as remote from our principles as the East is from the West I confess neither he nor I are competent Judges in our own cause let the Godly Reader judge between us and hold fast that which comes nearest to the Analogy of Faith I shall now address my self to sâ—an the force of those Arguments he hath brought to prove That the Elect are not justified in the sight of God before they believe CHAP. X. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges first Argument against Justification before Faith taken from the Nature of Justification is answered HIs first Argument is drawn from the Nature of Justification Which sayes he is the absolution of a sinner from condemnation by that gracious sentence and signal promise in the Gospel He that believes shall not enter into condemnation The Argument he hath cast into this frame If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word which may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he is in unbelief then no unbelieving sinner is justified But there is no act of grace declared and published in the Word which is a legal discharge of the sinner whilest he remains in unbelief Ergo. Whereunto I answer 1. That his Assumption is false for the Gospel or New Covenant is a published or declared discharge of all the Elect. The sum of which is That God hath transacted all their sins upon Jesus Christ and that Christ by that offering of his hath made a full and perfect atonement for them whereby the whole spiritual Israel are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God as of old carnal Israel were Typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Priest Levit. 16.30 Now though they cannot plead it before they believe yet is it a real discharge because it frees them from condemnation As a Pardon granted by a Prince is a legal discharge though the Malefactor doth not know of it 2. The Sequel or Consequence of the Major stands upon a sandy bottom a postulatum that will not be granted to wit That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a published declared act We have shewed before That Justification consists in the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of Righteousness which is an act of the Minde or Will of God It is a gross non sequitur God doth not declare his non-imputing of sin to his Elect before they believe Ergo He doth account and esteem them sinners The Question is not whether this gracious sentence of Absolution be declared but whether it be not in the Brest of God before it be declared or whether this immanent act of God doth not secure the sinner from condemnation If so then there is Justification though there be no published declared sentence As Gods saying in his heart That he would never drown the world any more Gen. 8.21 did sufficiently secure the world from the danger of an other deluge though he had never declared it so Gods will not to punish secures a person from condemnation though this security be not declared § 2. They are but feeble proofs wherewith he hath backed hâ—s Assertion That Justification is onely by the promise as a declared discharge We are not says he as if he saâ—e in Pythagoras his Chair to conceive of Justification as an internal immanent act of God resolving privately in his own Brest not to prosecute his right against a sinner but it must be some declared promulged act c. But why are we not to conceive of it as an internal immanent act Instead of proofs he gives us Illustrations which may pass in a Sermon but are too weak for a dispute As sin saith he is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5.13 So neither is Righteousness imputed without Law Whereunto I answer 1. Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves where there is not a Law to convince them of it For by the Law is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3.20 7.9 Gal. 3.19 Yet it follows not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed For what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin or his will to punish him for his sin Now the Lord hated all that perish ere ever the Law was given The scope of the Scripture alleadged Rom. 5.13 is not to shew when God begins to impute sin to a person but that sin in being supposeth a Law and consequently That there was a Law before the Law of Moses else men could not have sinned as it is confessed they did As the Law it self had a being in the Minde of God so the issues thereof were determined by him before it was declared 2. There is not the same reason of our being sinners and being righteous seeing that sin is our act but Righteousness is the gift of God A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin either by himself or Representative which necessarily supposeth a Law For sin is the transgression of a Law 1 Iohn 3.4 But a man may be righteous before he doth works of Righteousness and consequently before any Law is given him to obey Indeed if we were made righteous by our own personal Inherent Righteousness then our Justification would necessarily require a Law for as much as all our Righteousness consists in a conformity to the Law But seeing we are justified by the imputation of anothers Righteousness what need is there that a Law should first be given unto us § 3. Mr. W. goes on As our condemnation is no secret act or resolution of God to condemn but the very voice and sentence of the Law Cursed is he that sinneth and therefore he whom God in his Eternal Decree hath purposed to save may yet for the present be under the sentence of condemnation as the Ephesians whom God had chosen to Eternal Life Chap. 1.4 were yet sometimes the children of wrath Chap. 2.3 So on the contrary our Justification must be some declared promulged act or sentence of God which may stand good in Law for the discharge of the sinner against condemnation We say that condemnation being taken not for the Will of God to punish or to inflict upon a person the desert of his sin but for the thing willed or for the curse it self it comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam So our Justification being taken not for the Internal Act of Gods will not to punish but for the benefit willed to us by that Internal Act to wit Our actual discharge from the Law descends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made
men have affirmed that the person of the Spirit dwels in the Saints from those Texts John 14.16 17 26.15.26 2 Tim. 1.14 Rom. 8.11 1 Cor. 6.19.3.16 Yet none that are sober ever affirmed that the person of the Spirit dwelleth in us in such a manner as to make us one person with himselfe or to communicate his personal Properties to us so that I may say of this Argument as Maldonate of a certain Text in the Gospel hic locus facilior esset si nemo cum exposuisset it had been more plain and perspicuous if these distinctions had been omitted I see not how a man could imagine any other sence then this That God according to his gracious Covenant doth in his appointed time give or send his Spirit in the preaching of the Gospell to work Faith in all those that are ordained to life So that the Spirit is the cause and Faith the effect It matters not how he is given whether Personally or Operatively for if the Spirit which works Faith be given us by vertue of the New Covenant then some benefit of the Covenant is bestowed upon us before we beleeve Quod erat demonstrandum § 5. Though the Spirit be not given us as he saith one atome of time before we beleeve yet that weakens not the force of the Argument it is enough for my purpose that it hath a precedency in order of nature though not of time and that Faith is not before the Spirit for then Faith is not the condition of the Covenant seeing the condition goes before the thing conditioned and consequently that conditional Promise If thou beleeve c. is not the tenor of the New Covenant Either he must say 1 That the Spirit doth not work Faith and that it is a work of Nature to wit of our own Free will contrary to innumerable Scriptures Or 2 That the Spirit which works Faith is not given us by vertue of the New Covenant which was disproved by comparing Joh. 6.45 with Jer. 31.34 is contrary to those Scriptures which affirmed that all spiritual blessings are given us in and through Christ Eph. 1.3 Rom. 8.32 Or 3 that there is some other condition of the Covenant besides and before Faith as they that make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ingenuity and towardlinesse of nature the condition of conversion or 4 that there are two New Covenants one absolute and the other conditional one wherein Faith is promised without condition the other wherein all things else are promised upon condition of Faith of which more in its place § 6. Whereas he chargeth me with often abusing that received maxime Posita causa ponitur effectus Leting passe his uncivil language I say 1 that in our discourse I did not so much as mention it nor at any time else but with such cautions and limitations as Artists give understanding it of causa proxima completa and then I conceive causa posita in actu the effect must necessarily follow 2 I cannot see that it is any abuse to apply it to the death of Christ in effecting our Justification or deliverance from the curse his death and satisfaction being the adequate and immediate cause therof for when the debt is paid the oblâ—gation is no longer in force 3 Though I understood this maxime never so well it would little advantage Mr. Woodbridges cause That Faith is the condition of having the Spirit in our first conversion unlesse it would prove that the cause is produced by its immedate effect § 7. That which follows is altogether impertinent as a man saith he doth first build himselfe an house and then dwels in it so Christ by his Spirit doth build organâ—ze and prepare the Soule to be an house unto himselfe and then by the same Spirit dwels in it immediately What is this to prove that no man hath interest in the Covenant before he beleeves or that the Spirit which workes Faith is not given us before Faith We grant that Christ by his Spirit doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 build or prepare the Soule to be his house and then dwels in it vouchsafes more sensible effects of his presence but is not that organizing preparing act of the Spirit one benefit of the Covenant and is not the Spirit in that act the cause of Faith if so then wee have an interest in the Covenant before Faith for he that hath jus in re doubtlesse hath jus ad rem when wee have the benefits of the Covenant it cannot bee denied but wee have a right and title to them I find that Mr. Burges mentions this answer but saith he it is not safe to go this way for that grand promise Ezek. 36.26 Doth evidently argue the habits or internall principles of grace are before the actions of grace § 8. His next passage gives us little evidence of a heart prepared and organized by the Spirit of Christ it being false and slanderous This saith he is that which I would have spoken publickly in answer to the Argument if Mr. E. had not been beyond measure obstreperous 1 I dare say such as know Mr. Woodbridges tongue and forehead will not easily beleeve that he would be hindred from speaking his whole mind But 2 my innocency in this matter hath been cleared by persons more worthy to be beleeved then Mr. W. especially when be speaks in his owne cause 3 I shall adde that I verily beleeve he then spake near as many words I am sure as much to the purpose as this which he hath Printed I well remember some passages which are here omirted as that saying anima fabricat sibi domicilium the Soul formes the Body and then dwels in it as the soul works first efficiently that afterwards it may act formally so doth the spirit in our conversion c. 4 If he spake no more it was his owne fault for all that were present doe know that the onely answer I could get unto divers Syllogismes was I deny all But this he intended rather to vilifie me then to excuse himselfe CHAP. XVII Concerning the Covenant wherein Faith is promised and by vertue whereof it is given to us MR. W. in the next place propoundes this Question Whether Faith it selfe be not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us Which he answers negatively Faith is not given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us but by vertue of the Covenant made with Christ His Answer implies that there are two distinct Covenants of Grace one made with Christ and the other with us which will need a clearer evidence then yet he hath given us We deny not but Faith yea and all other blessings are promised in the Covenant which was made with Christ the promise of giving him a seed and that this seed shall be blessed doth include no lesse All the Promises both of this life and that which is to come are but so many explications of the grand
though he started aside as well as Saul yet the Covenant made with him was not thereupon dissolved and broken § 8. 3. Because if there were any condition required in the New Covenant to intitle us to the Blessings of it it would not be a Covenant of pure Grace so that the asserting of conditions in the New Covenant doth by necessary consequence overthrow the nature of it for as Austine hath observed Grace is not grace unless it be every way free and the Apostle before him Rom. 11.6 If by grace then is it no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace but if it be of works then is it no more grace Our Salvation is ascribed to Grace not onely inclusively but exclusively Ephes. 2.8 9 Tit. 2.5 All the Blessings of the New Covenant are called Gifts Rom. 5.17 18. 6.23 and gifts that are given freely 1 Cor. 2.12 Rom. 3.24 To give a thing freely and conditionally are contradictories he that parts with any thing upon conditions doth as it were sell it The works and conditions which men perform in the Prophets phrase are their money Isai. 55.1 2. A condition performed makes the thing covenanted for a due debt which the promiser is bound to give so that if the Blessings of the Covenant did depend upon conditions they would not be of grace but debt and men by performing those conditions would be at least in part their own Saviours Now what can be imagined more derogatory to the Grace of God Object True may some say it would derogate from the grace of God if we attributed such a meritoriousness unto these conditions as the Papists do unto works but we do not do so To which I answer 1 That the Papists assert no other works and conditions to be necessary to Justification and Salvation then what our Adversaries do 2 Neither Papists nor Arminians do ascribe any more meritoriousness to works then our opponents They grant there is such an infinite distance and disproportion between the Blessing promised and the conditions required of us that in strictness of Justice they do not deserve it onely expacto seeing God is pleased to promise so largely upon condition of so small a pittance of service we may be said to merit by performing the condition and in this sence Mr. Baxter will tell you That the performers of a condition may be said to merit the reward The Papists never pleaded for merit upon any other account Mr. Calvin observed long ago how much they please themselves with this simple shift supposing that hereby they shall evade whatsoever Arguments are brought against them Though Mr. B. seems to mince the matter calling his conditions but a sine qua non and a Pepper corn c. he attributes as much if not more to works then the Papists Arminians and Socinians have done the Papists will not say That works do merit in a strict and proper sence Smalzius calls their fides formata a meer sine qua non and a known friend to the Remonstrants Doctrine amongst our selves dubs it with no better name then a sleight unconsiderable despicable Pepper corn most pitifully unproportionable to the great rent which God might require and to the infinite treasure of glory he makes over to us And again That mite of Obedience Faith and Love But now Mr. B. goes a step beyond them in that he ascribes a meritoriousness to works which the Arminians and Socinians have not dared to do 3 I would ask whether the condition required of Adam were meritorious of eternal life I presume no man will say it was in a strict and proper sense there being no proportion between the work and the wages but yet that condition did lessen the freeness of Divine Grace The Grace of God was not manifested so much in saving man in that way as in giving life unto him freely And therefore to put our Justification and Salvation upon the same terms must necessarily eclipse the Grace of God in the New Covenant Object But some may say there is a great difference the conditions required of Adam were legal conditions but the conditions which we stand for and assert in the New Covenant are Evangelical Conditions I answer That the sound of words doth nothing at all alter the nature of things all conditions performed for life are legal conditions The precepts both of Law and Gospel have the same matter though not the same end but when Gospel duties are made conditions of Justification and Salvation there is no difference Object Yes may some say Evangelical conditions are more facile and easie then the Legal were Are they so Let them consider again whether it be more easie for a man that is dead in trespasses and sins to believe in Christ to love God to hate sin to mortifie his lusts c. then it was for Adam in his innocency when he had a natural inclination to obey God to abstain from the fruit of one Tree when he had a thousand besides as good as that there can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was But if it were so yet would the reward be debt and not grace As he that hath his peny by contract hath as much right to it though he labored but an hour as if he had endured the heat of the whole day We say Gradus non variat speciem it is not more grace but all grace that doth denominate the Covenant a Covenant of Grace § 9. To these Reasons there might be added many more which because they have been mentioned before upon another occasion I shall not stand upon them 4. Because all the pretended conditions of the Covenant are promised in the Covenant Now it is absurd to make any thing a cause of itself or a means and condition whereby it is procured 5. Because the asserting of conditions in the Covenant attributes unto men a power and ability to do good not onely before they are justified but before they believe For if all the promises of the Covenant are conditional then the promise of Faith is conditional and consequently a man must be supposed able to perform some good and acceptable work to God before he believes whereas without Faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Conditions in a proper sence do necessarily infer the liberty of mans will unto that which is good for as the Remonstrants do define it A condition is a free act which we absolutely may perform or not perform by Freewil not acted by the predeterminating grace of God A Conditional Covenant and Freewil are inseparable the former supposeth the latter Whether Mr. W. will own the Consequence I am not able to say however that there is no such power or ability in the Natural man to do that which is good might be irrefragably demonstrated from sundry Scriptures as Gen. 6.5 Eph. 2.1 2. 1 Cor. 2.14 2 Cor. 3.5 Rom.
in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who do conceit the contrary I know not what could be spoken more contradictory to many plain Scriptures which shall be mentioned anone more derogatory to the full atonement which Christ hath made by his Death and more disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the whole weight of their Salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing And therefore after the Exercise was fully ended I desired the Minister that Preached that with his leave and the patience of the Congregation I might remonstrate the insufficiency of his Grounds or Reasons to uphold the Doctrine he had delivered three of which I took more especial notice of One was drawn from the parallel between the first and the second Adam As men said he are not guilty of Adams sin till they have a Being so the Elect have no benefit by Christ till they have a Being whereunto he added those old Philosophical Maxims Non entis non sunt accidentia and Accidentis esse est inesse Another was That where there is no union there can be no communion but there is no union between Christ and the Elect before they believe Therefore the Elect have no communion and participation in the benefits of Christs death before they have a Being and do believe in him The proof of the Assumption was managed thus The union between Christ and the Saints is a personal union which cannot be supposed till their persons have a Being A third ground upon which he laid the greatest stress was to this purpose The Elect have no benefit by Christ before they do believe because God hath made a Covenant with his Son That they for whom he died should be admitted to partake of the Benefits of his death by Faith § 6. Whereunto my Replies were to this effect I told him that I conceived his first Allegation made very much against him For if the Righteousness of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle shews it doth Rom. 5. Then it must follow That the Righteousness of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a Being and then much more before they do believe in him for it is evident that Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation before they had a Being for by that first transgression sayes the Apostle vers 12. Sin entered into the world And more plainly Death passed upon all men The Reason follows because in him or in his loyns all have sinned Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is All that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a Being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that shall be saved were constituted righteous his obedience being imputed unto them by God before they had any Being otherwise then in him as their Head and common Person There is a late Writer who tells us that there is not the same Reason for the imputation of Christs Righteousness to all the Elect before they believe as there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a Being Because says he the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way but the issues of Christs death do come to us in a supernatural way But this Reason seems to me to be of small validity for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed unto none until they are actually propagated and the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate Parents as they do from Adam so that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernatural way i. e. By vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unless they can shew any Proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flow as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force But to return to my discourse with Mr. Warren I added That those Logical axioms non entis c. have no force at all in the present Controversie It doth not follow that Christs Righteousness cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created Being because accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects for as much as imputed Righteousness is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not necessarily require our existence Christ is the Subject of this Righteousness and the imputation of it is an act of God Now the Apostle hath observed That God in justifying and imputing Righteousness calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4.17 As the Righteousness of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarks before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say That Christs Righteousness is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a Being § 7. As to his second Reason before mentioned I excepted as I conceive but justly 1. Against his calling our union with Christ a personal union which seems to favor that absurd notion That a believer loseth not onely his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the Nature and Person of the Son of God Divines do call our union with Christ a Mystical and Spiritual union because it is secret and invisible to be apprehended by Faith and not by Sense or Reason but the Hypostatical or Personal union is proper unto Christ in whom the Divine and Humane Nature do constitute but one Person 2. Against his Assertion proposed Universally That there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe for though there be not that conjugal union between them which consists in the mutual consent of parties yet is there such a true and real union that by means thereof their sins do become Christs and Christs Righteousness is made theirs God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ and all the Elect to be as it were one Heap or Lump one Vine one Body or Spiritual Corporation wherein Christ is the Head and they the Members Christ the Root and they the Branches Christ the First Fruits and they the residue of the Heap In respect of this union it is That they are said to be given
Predestination If Gods decree be absolute Nemo vigilet nemo jâ—junet nemo libidini contradicet c. The Papists say It follows That if we be justified by Faith onely then we need not do good works The Remonstrants and their followers say That if a Believer cannot fall from Grace then need he not fear to commit any sin whatsoever Nor do these Consequences flow any whit more naturally from our Tenent then they do from these Doth it follow That because all the Elect are by means of Christs death actually reconciled unto God and freed from the condemnation of the Law That therefore men may live as they list that they need not hear believe and obey the Gospel How doth this sow pillows under mens elbows or lull asleep in security more then the Doctrine of absolute Election Seeing as all men are not elected so neither are all men reconciled unto God nor can any man know That he is elected and reconciled unto God but by and thorow Faith which Faith is wrought in men by the Preaching of the Word and doth certainly produce a holy life § 7. I confess I am yet to seek of the Reason of his other Deduction That this Assertion of actual reconciliation before Faith overthrows the comfort of true Believers and destroyes the ground nature use and end of Faith Is it an uncomfortable Doctrine to tell men That we are not sharers with Christ in effecting of our peace with God and in procuring the pardon of our sins and that Christ hath finished this work before we knew it Is it not much more comfortable to poor souls that Christ hath absolutely and by himself obtained forgiveness for sinners then that he hath procured this Grâ—â—e but conditionally upon condition we perform such and such 〈◊〉 for which we have no strength or ability in our selves Whence have the Saints drawn all their comfort Surely not from Faith or any other work of theirs but by Faith from Christ and from the perfection and al-sufficiency of his Sacrifice Not onely the Protestants but the Papists themselves though in the Schools they contend for the dignity and congruity of works that they are Moral causes or necessary conditions of Justification and Salvation yet on their death beds they utterly renounce them they exhort men in distress of Conscience to roul themselves wholly upon Jesus Christ. In a form prescribed for visiting of the sick the Priest or Minister was enjoyned to put these Questions to the sick party Dost thou believe to come to glory not by thy own merits but by the vertue and merit of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ And dost thou believe That our Lord Jesus Christ did die for our salvation and that none can be saved by his own merits or by any other means but by the merit of his passion Whereunto when the sick person answered affirmatively I do believe it the Priest is bid to exhort him in this wise Go to therefore as long as thy soul remaineth in thee place thy whole confidence in his death onely have confidence in no other thing commit thy self wholly to his death with this alone cover thy self wholly intermingle thy self wholly wrap thy whole self in his death c. Dangerous saith Bernard is the habitation of those that trust in their own works And in another place Ubi tuta c. What safe â—est or security can the weak soul finde but in the wounds of his Saviour As he is mighty to save so dwell I there with most safety Parisiensis in his Book of Divine Rhetorick Thou must beware saith he in thy striving with God that thou dost not build upon a weak foundation which he doth that trusts in his own works Gerson often inculcates this That before the tribunal of God we must onely plead the merits of Christ Bishop Gardner though he would not have this gap to be opened to the people yet he acknowledged it to be the most comfortable Doctrine to such as were in his condition he being then on his death bed Which is the more to be observed because in his life time he had stickled so much for our Adversaries Conditional Justification Bellarmine himself when he had written divers Books for Justification by Inherent Righteousness in the end concludes That for fear of vain-glory and by reason of the uncertainty of our own works Tutissimum est c. It is the safest way to place all our trust in the Mercy of God and of Jesus Christ so that we may say as Moses Their rock is not as our rock our Enemies themselves being Judges Deut. 32.31 § 8. Mr. Cr. hath not the least reason to charge us with destroying the Ground of Faith for the Ground of Faith is either Fundamentum Quod or Fundamentum Quo. Material and Personal or else Doctrinal and Ministerial We say with all true Christians That the onely Material or Personal Foundation whereupon a poor soul can build securely for Life and Justification is Jesus Christ Now the Doctrinal Foundation whereby our Faith is united to the former we affirm with Calvin and many more that it is Gratuita misericordiae in Christo promissio The free promise of Mercy in opposition to those Conditional Promises which send men partly to Christ and partly to their own works and therefore our Adversaries are much more obnoxious to this Censure of Destroying the Ground of Faith who allow it no other support then Conditional Promises whereby mens hope and confidence is made to lean more upon themselves then it doth on Christ much more upon their own works then it doth upon his Righteousness The forementioned Author hath well observed That if our Faith doth relie never so little upon our own works it cannot possibly stand fast that soul will never attain to any setled assurance of his Salvation that builds his Faith upon such a sandy foundation § 9. The nature of Faith receives not the least prejudice by our Doctrine for if we define it as most of our old Protestant Divines have done Certa indubitata persuasio A firm and certain perswasion of the favor of God and the pardon of our sins it confirms our Tenent for mens sins must be pardoned before they can believe it or else of necessity they must believe a lie All men know that the object doth precede the act unless it be when the act gives a being to the object Or if we make it to be fiducia the trust or reliance of the soul upon Jesus Christ it receives no small encouragement from this consideration That Christ hath finished whatsoever was necessary by Divine appointment for the Justification of sinners not expecting the least condition to be performed by us for that end Our Faith is never so impregnable as when it rests entirely upon Jesus Christ. And as for the ends and uses of Faith which are cheifly to give us boldness and
confidence towards God to purifie our hearts and to work by love c. They are all of them promoted and furthered by the Doctrine we teach for what is it that gives us boldness towards God but the merit and perfection of Christs sacrifice whereby the mouth of the Law is stopped the accusations of Satan are all answered and the justice of God is fully satisfied Again What other means is there so effectual to purifie our hearts to constrain us to love him c. as the freeness absoluteness and immutability of his love to us who whilest we were sinners and enemies reconciled us to himself by the Blood of the Cross and blotted out our sins as if they had never been committed § 10. Mr. Cr. censure of Curcellaeus's Opinion is just and seasonable who judgeth these Differences amongst Christians about Justification to be of so small concernment that they ought not to breed a controversie For surely they are none of those foolish questions and strivings which we are bid to avoid if there be any point in the whole Doctrine of Godliness for which we ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Jude speaks to contend earnestly This challengeth our utmost zeal for the maintenance of it seeing the glory of Gods Grace the dignity of Christs Blood and the comfort of our own souls lies at stake in the issues of it our life peace and everlasting Salvation is concerned herein There is no truth that the Apostle doth so frequently press and so earnestly contend for as this Article of our Free Justification That no works of ours do concur to the procuring of it Mr. Calvin hath observed That if we were accorded with the Church of Rome in all other points save in this one particular the distance between them and us is so great That it is impossible we should ever be reconciled And I must needs say That I see no material difference between them and our Adversaries about this matter § 11. Mr. Cr. in the close of his Prefatory Discourse tells the Reader Thou art beholding to the Learned Author for the penning of this Tract but for the publishing of it to another And Mr. W. hath framed it in the form of a Letter to a private Friend that the Reader might guess he had no hand at all in publishing of it whereas a near Kinsman of his assured me That Mr. W. in a Letter to himself had confessed that his Sermon came abroad by his own appointment which I do the rather believe knowing his relation to the Stationer for whom it was Printed However I am glad that it is made publick that this point may be the better cleared by a deliberate examination of the utmost that can be said against it onely I wish that this task had lighted upon some other man who hath more leisure and better abilities to undertake it that so precious a truth might not suffer through the unskilfulness of a feeble Advocate How much the Reader is beholding to Mr. W. for Penning or Printing of his Sermon will appear in the issue of this debate CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Introduction Text Doctrine and Proofs are briefly considered HAving passed Mr. Woodbridges Out-works we shall now proceed to survey the Fort it self which in his own conceit is built so impregnable That nothing consistent with the Scriptures can be brought against it How ever I am not discouraged from attempting it knowing That strong holds more unlikely to be vanquished have been laid flat and level with the ground Lam. 4.12 2 Cor. 10.4 5. In his Preface he tells the worthy Sir to whom he communicated his Notes That he will not trouble him with his Introduction to the Text or the Applicatory part of his Sermon It was very little that he spake in either but I well remember that he began and concluded with a great mistake In his Introduction he told us that the scope of this Epistle was to prove That we are justified by Faith i. e. as he explained it That we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe and that Faith is the condition on our part to qualifie us for Justification whereas the scope of the Apostle as shall be shewn more largely hereafter was not to assert the time of our Justification but the matter of it he intended not to shew when but wherewith we are justified to wit not by Works or Righteousness in us but by the Righteousness of Christ freely imputed to us which we apprehend and apply by Faith By taking Faith in a proper sense as a condition required on our part he accuseth the Apostle of Self-contradiction who all along denies That we are justified by works seeing Faith considered as a condition is a work of ours no less then love In that part of his Application where he addressed himself to unbelievers he told them That Christ was not a High Priest or Advocate to them and that they had no Court of Mercy to appeal unto which was all one as if he had said Christ did not die for them and that they had no more ground to believe in him then the Devils themselves and consequently that their case was desperate and irrecoverable though final unbelievers have not Christ for their High Priest for he neither died nor prayed for them Joh. 17.9 Yet he performed both acts of his Priesthood scil Oblation and Intercession for all that were given him by the Father long before the Conversion of many of them He laid down his life not onely for those sheep that were called but for those also that were not then gathered into his fold Joh. 10.15 16. And in the seventeenth of John he says expresly That he prayed not onely for them that did believe but for them also that should believe in him Vers. 20. Though it be true That Christ shed not his Blood for Reprobates yet we know not who are reprobated until it shall be made manifest by their final unbelief Indeed we cannot say to an unbeliever That Christ did die for him and we have as little reason to say That Christ did not die for him seeing the Word doth reveal neither and by affirming the latter we do quite bar up the door of Hope which ought to be held open to the worst of sinners Our duty is to declare That Christ is come into the world to save sinners and to exhort all men every where to believe him We were as good bid the Devils to believe as those for whom Christ is not a High Priest it is in vain for any to believe in Christ if he never prayed nor offered up himself a Sacrifice unto God for them but seeing Mr. W. hath not troubled his Friend with these passages I shall not trouble the Reader any longer about them § 2. That the Saints or true Believers under which notion he writes to the Romans are justified by Faith We do readily yeeld it to be a truth
by Justification we are to understand a Justification in the Court of Conscience or the Evidence and Declaration of a Justification already past before God So that Faith is said to justifie us not because it doth justifie us before God but because it doth declare to our Consciences that we are justified Now because this report is very imperfect I shall crave the patience of the Reader whilest I declare our Judgement a little more fully concerning this Matter together with the Grounds and Reasons that do uphold it and then I shall return to secure this Answer against the Exceptions Mr. W. hath made against it But first I shall shew the several Explications which Divines have given of his Proposition A man is justified by Faith CHAP. VI. The several Opinions of Divines touching the meaning of this Position A man is justified by Faith THe Question depending between me and Mr. W. is not Whether we are justified by Faith which the Scripture frequently affirms and no man that I know denies it Papists and Protestants Orthodox and Socinians Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants do unanimously consent That we are justified by Faith All the difference is about the Sense and Meaning of this Proposition A man is justified by Faith Whether Faith therein be to be taken Properly or Tropically For though there be great variety in Expression amongst Divines concerning this Matter yet all their several Opinions and Explications may be reduced unto these two heads The first takes Faith in sensu proprio for the act or habit of Faith the other takes Faith metonymicè relativè for the object of Faith i. e. The obedience and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. § 2. Our Protestant Divines who have hitherto been counted Orthodox do take Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith in a Tropical and Fâ—gurative Sence as thus A man is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by Faith i. e. By the Obedience and Righteousness of Jesus Christ in whom we believe and upon whom we relie for Life and Righteousness Nor is this any unusual Trope either in Scripture or in other Authors to put Habitum vel actum pro objecto as Rom. 8.24 Hope that is seen is not hope i. e. The thing that is seen is not hoped for Christ is oftentimes called our Hope our Joy our Love c. because he is the object of these Acts and Affections when the same thing is attributed distinctly both to the act and the object it must needs be attributed to one in a proper and to the other in an improper sence and therefore says Dr. Downham When Justification is attributed to Faith it cannot be attributed in the same sence as to the death and obedience of Christ in propriety of Speech but of necessity it is to be understood by a Metonymy Faith being put for the object of Faith which is the Righteousness of Christ c. And holy Pemble If we list not to be contentious it is plain enough saith he that in those places where the Apostle treats of Justification by Faith he means the Grace of God in Jesus Christ opposing Works and Faith that is the Law and the Gospel the Righteousness of the Law to the Righteousness of the Gospel which is no other but the Righteousness of Christ. Thus saith he Faith is taken Gal. 3.23 before Faith came i. e. Before Christ came and the clear exhibition of his Righteousness And in this sence as another hath observed it is used at least thirteen times in this Chapter where the Apostle expresly treats of our Justification before God Albertus Pighius though a Papist was so far convinced of this truth by reading of Calvins Institutions that he acknowledged If we speak formally and properly we are justified neither by Faith nor Charity but by the onely Righteousness of Christ communicated to us and by the onely mercy of God forgiving our sins § 3. Some of our Divines who do utterly deny That Faith in this Question is taken sensu proprio or that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of believing is imputed to us for Righteousness do yet ascribe an instrumentallity or inferior causality unto Faith it self in our Justification before God They say That we are justified by Faith instrumentally and relatively which terms I confess sound harshly in my ears but I hope I shall be excused if I do not understand them seeing a far learneder man then my self hath professed That they were not very intelligible to him That Faith is taken relatively in this Question of Justification to wit For the object it relates unto Christ and his Righteousness I do readily grant but that it justifies us Relatively I cannot assent to it for it seems to me to carry this sence with it either 1 that Faith doth procure our Justification though not by its own worth and dignity yet through the vertue and merit of its object As the Papists say of Works That they do justifie and save us tincta sanguine Christi being dipped in the Blood of Christ Or 2 that Faith together with Christ its object doth make us just in the sight of God whereby it is made a social cause with the blood of Christ which shall be sufficiently disproved anon Again that Faith is a passive Instrument of our Justification to wit such an Instrument whereby we receive and apply this benefit to our selves was shewn before but that it is an active efficacious Instrument to make us just and righteous in the sight of God is no part of my Creed For 1. it seems to me a contradiction to say That Faith is not to be taken sensu proprio but metonymicè for the object thereof and yet say That we are justified by Faith instrumentally for it is not the object but the act of Faith which is an Instrument Faith considered as an Instrument is taken sensu proprio and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere which they disclaim must be said to justifie 2. Mr. Baxter in my judgement disputes rationally against this notion If Faith saith he be the Instrument of our Justification it is the Instrument either of God or man not of man for Justification is Gods act he is the sole Justifier Rom. 3.26 man doth not justifie himself not of God for it is not God that believeth To which I adde that God neither needs nor is capable of using an Instrument in the act of justifying for though he useth Instruments to declare and reveal this Grace to sinners yet not to will it to particular persons the acts of his will are not wrought by any Organ or Instrument without himself 3. By making Faith the Instrument of our Justification Justification is made the Effect and Faith the Cause and so consequently a man shall be said to justifie himself whereas the Scripture every where ascribes our Justification unto God and Christ making
controversie would be but a meer Tautology for though it be the same Justification wherewith we are iustified in the sight of God and in the Court of Conscience yet the terms are not equipollent and convertible but do admit of distinct considerations though he that is justified in foro conscientiae is also justified in foro Dei yet every one that is justified in foro Dei is not justified in foro conscientiae § 3. Now according to these several Senses which are given of this forementioned phrase it will be easie to resolve the third Query concerning the time of our Justification when we were justified in the sight of God 1. If we take it in this last Construction I shall grant That we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe We do not know nor can we plead the benefits and comforts of this Blessed Priviledge until we do believe it is by Faith that the Righteousness of God is revealed to us and it is by his knowledge notitia sui that Christ doth justifie us or inables us to plead not guilty to all the Indictments and Menaces of the Law But 2. if we refer it to the justice of God which I conceive to be the most proper and genuine use of it we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his Blood for all our sins that ransome of his set them for whom he died free from the Curse of the Law cleansed them from all their sins and presented them holy blameless and unreproveable in the sight of God so that the eye of Divine Justice cannot behold in them the least spot of sin This perfect cleansing is the sole and immediate effect of the death of Christ in regard that no other cause concurs therewith in producing of it 3. If we refer it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himself not to impute to us our sins or to inflict those punishments upon us which our sins deserve but contrariwise to deal with us as righteous persons having given us the Righteousness of his own Son God doth certainly know whatsoever he wills Now God having from all eternity absolutely and immutably willed the Righteousness of his Son to all his Elect he saw or knew them to be righteous in his Righteousness even when he willed it § 4. For the clearer understanding of the Point in question I shall give in my Judgement concerning it as distinctly as I can in three Propositions proposition 1 The first shall be this That Justification is taken variously in the Scripture but more especially Pro volitione divina pro re volita as the Schools do speak 1 For the Will of God not to punish or impute sin unto his people and 2 for the effect of Gods Will to wit His not punishing or his setting of them free from the Curse of the Law That Justification is put for the effect of Gods will or the thing willed by that Internal Act to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment I suppose there is none will question the onely scruple that can arise is Whether the Will of God not to punish or charge sin upon a person is or may be called Justification I confess to the end that I might not offend the weak I have been sparing of calling this immanent act of God by the name of Justification and the rather because some gross mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of this expression As 1 that absurd conceit That Christ came not to satisfie the justice but onely to manifest the love of God which yet hath not the least countenance from our Doctrine seeing that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect we say That the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no less then for the sins of others And 2 their notion who upon this ground have asserted the Eternal Being of the Creature whereunto they were driven because they could not answer that Consequence Justificatus est Ergo Est which holds not in terminis diminuent ibus whether à priori as Electus est Ergo Est or à posteriori Mortuus est Ergo Est. Yet I must profess That I look upon Dr. Twisse his judgement in this point as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the Will of God not to punish Mr. Kendal though he makes Justification to be a declared sentence or transient act of God yet he grants That Gods Will or Decree to remit our sins carries in it a remission of them tan◠amount for who shall charge them on us if God decree to remit them And again This Decree hath so much in it that looks so well like unto Justification that is may be called so without Blasphemy But I see no inconvenience at all but rather very much reason to adhere unto the Doctors definition That Justification is the Will of God not to punish 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives us of Justification is most properly applied to this act of God It is a certain rule Definitum est cui convenit definitio that is Justification whereunto the definition of Justification doth agree The definition which the Psalmist and from him the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and his imputing of righteousness unto a person Psal. 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 8. Now when God willeth not to punish a person he doth not impute sin to him The original words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified do make it more clear for both of them do signifie an act of the minde or will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used by the Psalmist is properly to think repute esteem or account and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same signification it is usually applied to Accountants who when they have cast up many sums do set down at the foot what they do amount unto So when a man hath accounted with himself the loss and benefit conveniencies and inconveniencies that may accrue unto him the result and issue of his deliberation is significantly expressed by this word it notes a stedfast purpose and resolution Quae quasi rationibus subductis explicatis conclusa est it is opposed unto a doubtful and uncertain opinion It notes either the purpose or determination of one alone or the consent and agreement of two between themselves whereof Camerarius gives us an instance out of Zenophon This word is fitly used to signifie this immanent act of God for though he doth not purpose and resolve in that manner as men do by comparing things together or by reasoning and concluding one thing out of another yet are his purposes much more firm and immutable Mal. 3.6 Jam. 1.17 Numb 23.19 The Lord therefore did non-impute sin
a Stone or other Creatures which are not capable of sinning but Privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of Righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentiâ The difference between these is as great as between a mans will not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted and his will not to require any thing of one that never did nor will ow him any thing 2 This non-imputation of sin is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being in like manner the imputation of Righteousness is actual though the Righteousness to be imputed is not actual Man whose thoughts arise de novo doth non-impute usually after the commission of a fault but for God who is without any shadow of change and turning so to do is absolutely impossible for as much as there cannot arise any new will or new thought in the heart of God 3 This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable Will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it and he in like manner imputing Righteousness none can hinder it Neither doth this render the death of Christ useless which is necessary by the Ordinance of God as a meritorious cause of all the effects of this Justification even as the eternal Love of God is compleat in it self but yet is Christ the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Eph. 1.3 4. And therefore we say § 7. 2. That if Justification be taken as most commonly it proposition 2 is not for the Will of God but for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Though there be no cause of the former out of God himself for the merits of Christ do not move God to will not to punish or impute sin unto us yet is Christ the meritorious cause of the latter It is from the vertue of his Sacrifice that the obligation of the Law is made void and the punishments therein threatned do not fall upon us By his death he obtained in behalf of all the Elect not a remote possible or conditional reconciliation but an actual absolute and immediate reconciliation as shall be proved anon And in this respect all that were given unto Christ by the Father may be said to be justified at his death not onely virtually but formally for the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor Their discharge from the Law was not to be sub termino or in Diem but present and immediate it being impossible that a debt should be discharged and due at the same time We acknowledge That the effects of this discharge from the Law may be said to be sub termino or in Diem As for instance from that full satisfaction and perfect Righteousness which Christ hath performed there arise these two things One is The non-execution of the desert of sin which we continually commit upon us That whereas the Reprobate sin and upon their sin the curse with all the evils included in it is upon them The Elect likewise sinning yet for Christs sake the curse or evil of suffering is not inflicted upon them which non-punishing quoad effectum is forgiving and not imputing sin And in this sense God is frequently said to forgive when he doth not inflict punishment and in this sense also he is said often to forgive The other is The imputation of Righteousness in the effects of it whereby the effects of a true and perfect Righteousness come upon the people of God to wit All good things both for this life and that which is to come yea those things which seem to be evil and hurtful as their falls and afflictions are ordered by the over-ruling hand of a wise and powerful Providence to work together for good unto them These effects are immediate in respect of causality though not of time for though God doth not presently bestow them but as he sees fit both for his own glory and for their good yet do they immediately slow from the merit of Christ in regard there is no other meritorious cause that intervenes and concurs therewith in procuring of them Notwithstanding we say That our discharge from the Law must needs be immediate and present with the price or satisfaction that was paid for it in regard That it implies a contradiction a debt should be paid and discharged and yet justly chargable But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter § 8. 3. Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution proposition 3 and forgiveness And thus God is said to justifie men when he reveals and makes known to them his Grace and Kindness within himself And in this sense do most of our Divines take Justification defining it The declared sence of absolution and not improperly For in Scripture phrase as was noted before things are then said to be when they are declared and manifested the declaring of things is expressed in such wise as if it made them to be whereof many instances might be given a very plain one there is Gen. 41.13 Pharaohs cheif Butler speaking of Josephs interpretation Me says he he restored and him i. e. the Baker he hanged whereas he did but declare these successes unto them So God is said to justifie his people when he manifests and reveals to them that mercy and forgiveness which before was hidden in his own heart to wit that he doth not impute their sins but contrariwise doth impute Righteousness unto them Now the Lord at sundry times and divers ways hath and doth declare and manifest this precious Grace unto his people 1 More Generally towards all his Elect and 2 more Particularly to individuals or numerical persons The former is done 1 in the Word of God and 2 in his Works and Actions § 9. First God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to his people in his Word The Gospel or New Covevant being an absolute promise as we shall shew anon may be fitly termed a Declarative Sentence of Absolution unto all the Elect to whom alone it doth belong the publication of the New Covenant is their Justification For which cause Maccovius makes Justification to Commence from the first promise which was pronounced before the curse So that if Adam had not been a publick person including both the Elect and Reprobate there had been no curse at all pronounced save onely upon the Serpent or Satan in reference to this promise it was that the Apostle saith The Grace of God 2 Tim. 1.9 and eternal life Tit. 1.2 was given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie eternity as our Translators carry it but the beginning of time it is of the same latitude with 〈◊〉
us before we believe For first if we take Justification pro volitione Dei for the Will of God not to punish he cannot but know there is not the same reason of an immanent act of God which is Eternal and of a transient act which is in time or secondly if we take it pro re volita as it is the fruit and effect of Christs death it will not follow that because we have not Glorification before believing we have not Justification For though all the Blessings of the Covenant are given us freely and not upon conditions performed by us yet God hath his order and method in bestowing of them He first gives us Grace imputed then Grace inherent and afterwards Eternal Glory And thus some Benefits of the Covenant are by some though improperly made conditions of the rest because they are first enjoyed § 10. That which Mr. W. addes Pag. 10. and wisheth may be seriously considered hath been considered already more then once If saith he Justification by Faith must be understood of Justification in our Consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for a Justification before God in all the Scriptures from the beginning to the end we read of no Justification in Scripture but by Faith or Works Mr. E. sayes he when the Scripture speaks of Justification by Works understands it of Justification before men when it speaks of Justification by Faith he understands it of Justification in our Consciences Now neither of these is Justification in the sight of God and verily neither of them of much worth in the Apostles judgement 1 Cor. 4.3 The Antinomians may read out their eyes before they produce us one Text c. Had he reported my Judgement truly there had been no room for this Exception I have said indeed and by all that Mr. W. hath said against it I see no reason to change my minde that when the Scripture attributeth our Justification to Works as in the Epistle of James it is to be understood of our Justification before men when it ascribes it to Faith Faith is taken either properly or metonymically if it be taken properly for the act of Believing then it is to be understood of our Justification before God terminated in our Consciences or as it is revealed and evidenced to our selves Justification in Conscience is Justification before God as an Acquittance in the heart of the Creditor and in a Paper is one and the same this manifested and the other secret He that is justified in his Conscience is justified before God and Faith apprehends that which doth not onely justifie us in our Consciences but before God Or if Faith be taken metonymically for its object then Justification by Faith is Justification before God for it is Justification by the Merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3.24 Ephes. 1.7 and in many other such places § 11. But says Mr. W. Justification before men and in our Consciences are neither of them of much worth in the Apostles Judgement 1 Cor. 4 3. 1. I wish that Justification with men were of less account with Mr. W. He best knows whether Conscience of vindicating the truth or popular affectation put him upon this engagement I am sure the former would not have tempted him to those incivilities he hath offered unto me and others whom I doubt not but God will know by other names then he is pleased to cast upon us If the later or a desire of ingratiating himself with some of my Opposers did spur him forward though he hath Justification before men which yet I assure him is not Universal no not amongst many that do wish him well I dare say he is not justified in the Court of Conscience and if our heart c. 1 Joh. 3.20 2. But doth the Apostle account neither of these Justifications much worth Let Mr. W. judge in what account he had Justification before men by what he sayes 2 Cor. 1.12 1 Cor. 9.15 And Justification in Conscience by those blessed Effects he ascribes unto it Rom. 5.1 23. see 1 John 3.21 3. It is true 1 Cor. 43. he sayes That he cares not to be judged of mans judgement or of mans day The meaning is That he did not regard the sinister Judgements and Censures of carnal Christians who praise and dispraise upon light and trivial inducements like them Chap. 1. v. 12. Yea sayes he I judge not my self q. d. I am not solicitous nor do I enter into consideration what degree of honor or esteem I am worthy of amongst or above my fellows Now what is this to the purpose What is this to the Justification of his person in the Court of Conscience by Faith or the Justification of his Faith and Sincerity towards men by Works I must needs say with a very worthy Divine That no small portion of favor consists in a Sence and Knowledge of the kindness of God in its actings terminated upon the Conscience however Mr W. is pleased to value it § 12. In his next Passage he gives us a Youthful Frolick to shew his gallantry like Mr. Baxters challenge Let the Antinomians shew one Scripture which speaks of Justification from Eternity The Antinomians saith he the Anti-Papists and Anti-Arminians he means may read their eyes out before they produce us one Text for any other Justification in Scripture which is not by Faith or Works 1 Though the Antinomians are so blinde that they cannot finde one Text for this purpose yet he himself is such a quick-sighted Linceus that he hath discovered more then one For Pag. 23. he tells us of a threefold Justification and yet neither of them is by Faith or Works I hope he hath not read out his eyes to finde them out 2 In what sence the Scripture asserts Justification before Faith or Works hath been shewn before but 3 if I may be so bold I would ask how long the Anti-Gospellers may read before they produce one plain Text for any of those Dictates they would thrust upon us That Justification doth in no sence precede the act of Faith that Christ purchased onely a conditional not an absolute Justification for Gods Elect that our Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified is in our selves that the tenor of the New Covenant is If thou believe c. That God hath made a Covenant with Christ that none should have any benefit by his death till they do believe Cum multis aliis quae nunc c. § 13. Mr. W. thinks he hath sufficiently cleared the coast of this Exception That Faith in a proper sence is said to justifie in respect of its evidencing property or because it declares and applies to our Consciences that perfect Justification which we have in Christ. But by his leave it is like to be a bone for him to pick till the Index Expurgatorius hath
till it looks unto him in whose wounds and stripes is the healing of sinners 3. This very comparison doth make against him as the Israelites were alive when they looked upon the Brazen Serpent or else they could not have seen it So they that â—â—ok upon Jesus Christ i. e. Believe in him are spiritually alive or else they could not put forth such a vital act It is said indeed Numb 21.9 that when any man that was bitten beheld the Serpent of Brass he lived i. e. He was healed or had ease from his anguish so they that by Faith look up unto the Antitype they finde ease and rest for their wearied souls they do then live i. e. they have the comfort and enjoyment of that life which before they had in Christ. A man is said to live when he lives comfortably and happily § 2. 4. Mr. W. to make the comparison suit hath falsified the Text Joh. 6 40. The words are It is the Will of God that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life it is not may be justified as he corrupts it 5 Whereas he sayes Faith is compared to eating and Justification to nourishment Joh. 6.51 It is a mistake like the former for it is Christ himself who throughout that Chapter is compared to bread and food whom by Faith we receive for our refreshment consolation and spiritual nourishment § 4. His fourth Argument is drawn from the perpetual opposition between Faith and Works from whence he reasons thus What place and order works had to Justification in the Covenant of Works the same place and order Faith hath to our Justification in the Covenant of Grace But Works were to go before our Justification in the Covenant of Works Ergo Faith is to go before our Justification in the Covenant of Grace I answer That his Major is extreamly gross I dare say a more unsound Assertion cannot be picked out of the Writings either of the Papists or Arminians then this is That Faith taking it as he doth in a proper sence hath the same place in the Covenant of Grace as works have in the Covenant of Works That I have not charged him too high will appear to any one that shall consider these few particulars First Works in the first Covenant are meritorious of Eternal life he that doth the works required in the Law may in strictness of Justice claim the promise as a due debt Rom. 4.4 Was ever any Protestant heard to say That Faith and Faithful actions which as hath been shewn men of his notion do include in Faith do merit Eternal life Secondly Works in the first Covenant are the matter of our Justification he that doth them is thereby constituted just and righteous in the sight of God Righteousness consists in a conformity to the Law so that whosoever keeps the Law must needs be righteous But now Faith is not the matter of our Righteousness God doth not account men righteous for their Faith I confess he hath Bellarmine and Arminius on his side who say that ipsa fides or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputatur in justitiam but the Apostle hath taught us other Doctrine Rom. 5.19 That by the obedience of one i. e. of Christ many are made righteous And 2 Cor. 5.21 That we are made the Righteousness of God in him Thirdly If Faith hath the same place in the second Covenant as Works in the first then must God account Faith to be perfect Righteousness which is contrary to his Truth and Justice To say that Faith is perfect Righteousness by the second Covenant though not by the first is but petitio principii Legal and Evangelical Righteousness being one and the same as to the matter of Righteousness though they are inherent in divers subjects The first Covenant requires a Righteousness in us the second gives and accepts a Righteousness which is anothers Fourthly If Faith hath the same place in the second Covenant as Works had in the first then were the second Covenant a Covenant of Works seeing Faith is a work and a work of ours So that by this means the two Covenants should be confounded nor would the latter be any whit more of Grace then the former Fifthly This Assertion makes Faith to be not of Grace because not from the Covenant of Grace seeing the Covenant it self depends upon it How contrary this Doctrine is to the sense of our Protestant Divines hath in part been shewed before who till this last Age have taught that these two Propositions A man is justified by Works and A man is justified by Faith do carry meanings utterly opposite to one another The one is proper and formal the other is metonymical and relative In this Proposition A man is justified by Works we are to take all in a plain and literal sence That God doth account him that hath kept the Law exactly in all points a righteous person and consequently worthy of Eternal life but now that other Proposition A man is justified by Faith we must understand it Relatively thus That a sinner is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by Faith i. e. By the Obedience and Righteousness of Jesus Christ which we receive and apply unto our selves by true Faith § 4. Let us now hear what Mr. W. hath to say for the defence of his Major which treads Antipodes to the current of all out Protestant Writers If saith he the Minor be granted the Major must be out of Question I must confess if confidence did prove here were proof enough That which he addes hath as little weight as 1 Why should not Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved which is the tenor of the New Covenant Rom. 10.6 9. plead as strongly for the antecedency of Faith to Iustification in this Covenant as do this and live doth evince that works were necessary antecedents of Justification in the Old Covenant Answ. Here he takes for that granted which will certainly be denied scil That believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved is the tenor of the New Covenant for 1 it is no where called so 2 where the New Covenant is recited as Jer. 31. Heb. 8. it runs quite in another strain it doth not promise Salvation upon condition of Faith but Faith and Salvation and all other Blessings present and future That Text Rom. 10.6 9. is not the tenor of the New Covenant for that requires Confession as well as Faith and then the Justification of the New Covenant should be called Justification by Confession as well as by Faith The Apostle there describes the persons that shall be saved they are such as do believe and profess the truth His scope as our Divines have noted is to resolve that grand and important Question How a man may know that he shall be saved You need not sayes he to ascend into Heaven or descend into
to all the consequences of his debts In this sence our Formal Justification is by the gracious sentence of the Gospel terminated upon our Consciences but otherwise intrinsecally and formally the payment of our debt is our real discharge I shall grant him That the death of Christ doth justifie us onely virtually but yet I affirm That the satisfaction in his death being performed and accepted for us doth justifie us formally for the actual payment of a debt is that which formally makes him that was the debtor no debtor And therefore Christ dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonima's in Scripture phrase Rom. 5.8 9 10. Object But against this some have alledged that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 where he saith That Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the Righteousness of God in him Whence they would infer That the laying of our sins on Christ is onely an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Whereunto we Answer 1 That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause As when it is said That light is let in that darkness might be expelled where the immission of light is formally the expulsion of darkness 2 Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us do differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God which was when God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them before the word of Reconciliation was given and therefore before they believed Vers. 19. 3 Though the imputation of our sin to Christ and so the non-imputation thereof to us have an antecedency in respect of imputation of Righteousness to us yet it is of nature onely and not of time For though it be objected That we were not then and therefore Righteousness could not be imputed unto us yet it follows not They might as well object Our sins were not then Ergo They could not be imputed unto Christ whereas in this business of Justification God calleth things that are not as though they were But if Mr. W. had shewn what it is that formally justifies us besides the satisfaction made in Christs death somewhat more might have been spoken to it § 7. The close of this Paragraph is such a dirty puddle that I intended to have stept over it in silence seeing it is so hard to touch pitch or pollution and not be defiled with it but yet for their sakes that do not know 〈◊〉 I shall stay the Reader a little whilest I wash off that dirt which he hath thrown upon me and others They are credulous souls I will assure you that will be drawn by such decoyes as these into Schism and Faction to the hardning and discomforting of more hearts in one hour then the Opinion it self should it obtain will do good to while the world stands I dare not allow my self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to pay him in his own coyn having perswaded my heart to follow better examples even his who when he was reviled reviled not again 1 Pet. 2.23 And theirs who being reproached returned blessing 1 Cor. 4.12 In these few words there are a heap of slanders packt together both against my self and others and which is more grievous to be born against the truths and ways of God which we adhere to 1. They that do embrace this Doctrine which I have taught are aspersed with credulity and levity I do verily believe there is not one of my charge but is able to say as the Samaritans John 4.42 We believe not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves c. I dare say they are better setled then to be shaken with the sophistry of this Assailant I am sure both they and many more will bear me witness how frequently I do admonish them of taking up matters of Faith upon trust and credit it being Idolatry in a high degree to give the most Spiritual Worship of God viz. Our Faith to a weak and sinful man He that believes a truth upon a Humane account is no better Christian then he that doth believe a lie Let the prudent judge whether they are not more justly obnoxious to this censure of abusing the credulity of simple souls who will not endure that their hearers should bring their Doctrines to the touchstone The tyranny and usurpation of the Popish Priests is far more excusable then the affected domination of some of ours for they believe that their Church is infallible and cannot erre ours confess that they are fallible and may erre and yet expect subscription to their Dictates no less then to the Canon it self It is held a piaculum to question or debate what ever they say 2. It is but an unhandsome character he hath given my Arguments which he calls decoyes The Apostle I take it hath Englished his French Eph. 4.14 The sleight of men who lie in wait to deceive I dare say he knows me better then in cold blood to accuse me of driving on such a devillish trade as wittingly to deceive mens precious souls And therefore I shall call in no other Compurgator then his own Conscience § 8. As for his charge of Schisme and Faction I am not carefull to answer it being the usuall foam of passionate men who when they want Arguments to convince fall to downright railing Schisme sayes a learned man in the common manage of the word is a meer Theologicall Scar-crow wherewith they who uphold a party in Religion seek to fright away others from enquiring into and closing with that which they doe oppose Both this and the other are most frequently in their mouthes who are deepest in the guilt that is imported by them Ahab by his sins brought down Plagues and Judgements upon Israel yet he cals Elijah the troubler of Israel 1 King 18.17 Athalia was the cheifest Traytor and yet she was the first that cryed out Treason 2 King 11.14 Tertullus was the Orator of the tumult yet he inveighs against Paul as a Ring leader of Sedition Act. 24.5 6. the Church of Rome which hath fallen from the purity of the Catholique Faith brands them for Schismaticks who refuse to continue in the same Apostasie Amongst our selves the late Innovators aspersed all those with Faction and Schisme who would not prostitute their Consciences to the Wils of men and to this day ignorant and prophane persons think all them to be Factious and Schismaticks who live more strictly and religiously then themselves I must needs say they are lesse to be blamed seeing Professors and Ministers do give them such an evill example § 9. I confesse though in common use Schisme and