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
it being in terminis in the Text. I dare say no man that is called a Christian did ever deny it and therefore he might have spared his pains in transcribing any more places of Scripture for confirmation of it But I do much marvel That so learned a man as Mr. W. who pretends to be more then ordinarily accurate should take in hand a controverted Text and never open the Terms nor state the Question which he meant to handle for though it be a sinful curiosity for men by Dicotomies and Tricotomies Divisions and Subdivisions to mince and crumble the Scriptures till it hath lost the sense yet surely a workman that needs not to be ashamed ought rightly to divide the Word of Truth explain things that are obscure and dubious and where divers senses are given as he knows there are of this Text to disprove the false and confirm that which he conceives is true § 3. There is a vaste distance between the Apostles Proposition a man is justified by Faith and Mr. Woodbridges Inference Ergo Justification doth in no sence precede Faith Justification by Faith and Justification before Faith are not opposita but diversa though they differ yet they are not contradictory to each other The Scriptures which prove the former intend no strife or quarrel against the latter in a word The proof of the one doth not disprove the other The Scripture which he made his theam Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith we have peace with God c concludes nothing at all against Justification before Faith For 1 we may without any violence to the Text place the Comma after justified as thus Being justified by Faith we have peace with God This reading is agreeable both to the Apostles scope and to the Context His scope here was not to shew the efficacy of Faith in our Justification but what benefits we have by the death of Christ the first of which is Justification and the consequent thereof is peace with God Again the Illative Particle Therefore shews that this place is a Corollary or Deduction from the words immediately foregoing which ascribed our Justification wholly to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Chap. 4 ult The Apostle thence infers Being justified q. d. Seeing we are justified freely without works by the death of Christ by Faith we have peace with God the Lord powerfully drawing our hearts to believe this we have boldness and confidence towards God the cause of fear being taken away or as the Syriack and vulgar Latin read it Let us have peace with God let us by Faith improve this Grace for the establishing of our hearts in perfect peace Now according to this reading his own Text will give in evidence against him That Faith is not the cause or antecedent but an effect and consequent of our Justification procured and obtained by the death of Christ. But 2 if we take the words as commonly they are read the sence comes all to one scil That being justified by Christ who is the sole object of our Faith we have peace with God who by the Faith which he creates in us causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation by vertue whereof our Conscience is so firmly grounded that we are not moved by any temptation or beaten down by any terror The Work of Faith is not to procure our Justification but to beget peace in our Consciences So then the words being rightly understood they neither deny Justification before Faith nor assert Justification by the act or habit of Faith which Mr. W. would conclude from thence § 4. The next Scripture whose suffrage is desired against us is Gal. 2.16 We have believed in Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ. Where sayes Mr. W. Justification is expresly made a Consequent of Faith To which I Answer 1 That this doth no more infer That we are not justified before we believe then that of our Saviour Matth. 5.44 45. Love your enemies c. that ye may be the children of your Father in Heaven infers That works do go before adoption contrary to Eph. 1.5 6. 1 Joh. 3.3 the phrase that ye may be there is as much as that ye may be manifested and declared that ye may shew your selves or that all men may know that ye are the children of God by practising a duty so much above the reach of Nature and Morality A like place we have Rom. 3.26 God set forth his Son to declare his Righteousness that he might be just Now shall we hence infer That God was not just before or that Gods justice was a consequent of his sending Christ Now if we can understand that clause that he might be just That he might be known and acknowledged to be just Why may we not as well take this of the Apostle that we might be justified in the same construction that we might know that we are justified and live in the comfort and enjoyment of it So that not the Being of our Justification but the Knowledge and Feeling of it is a consequent of Faith Things in Scripture are then said to be when they are known to be so John 15.8 our Saviour tells the Disciples That if they did bear much fruit they should be his Disciples i. e. They should be known and manifested to be his Disciples as Chap. 13.35 Our Saviour is said at his Resurrection to have become the Son of God Acts 13.33 Because then as the Apostle speaks he was powerfully declared to be the Son of God Rom. 1.3 Again things are saâ—d not to be which do not appear as Melchisedec is said to be without Father and Mother c. Heb. 7.3 Because his Linage and Pedigree is not known so we are said to be justified or not justified according as this Grace is revealed to us But 2 in the Text it is We have believed that we might be justified by Faith so that from hence it can be inferred onely That we are not justified by Faith before believing and that the sentence of Justification is not terminated in our Consciences before we do believe § 5. His next Proof is grounded upon the order of the words Rom. 8.30 As glory saith he follows Justification so doth Justification follow Vocation unto Faith Whereunto I answer 〈◊〉 That the order of words in Scripture do not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves The Jews have a Proverb Non esse prius aut posterius in Scriptura The first and last must not be strictly urged in Scripture for that is not always set first which is first in Nature If we should reason from the order of words in Scripture we should make many absurdities as 1 Sam. 6.14 It is said that they clave the Wood of the Cart and offered the Kine for a burnt offering unto the Lord And then in the next Verse it follows That the Levites took down the Ark out of the Cart as
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hâ—ll c. to fetch Christ himself to tell you by immediate Revelation whether you shall be justified and saved we have neerer and more certain evidences He that believes with the heart c. In this Scripture he gives us two marks or characters of a true Christian one Internal known onely to the Christian himself Believing with the heart the other External or visible to men Confession with the mouth But of this we shall have occasion to speak more anon § 5. 2 He urgeth That Faith and Works have the like order to Justification in their respective Covenants or else Justification by Faith and Justification by Works were not opposed as they constantly are in the Apostles Writings c. We grant that there is a true and formal opposition between Faith and Works The Affirmative which the Jews pleaded for That a man is justified by Works and the Negative which the Apostle contended for That a man is not justified by Works but by Faith are as opposite as East and West and as impossible to be reconciled as light and darkness But then Faith must be taken Objectively and not Properly for that which is formally opposed to Works is not the act but the object of Faith to wit the Righteousness of Christ which we apprehend and enjoy by Faith for if by Faith he had meant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of believing there were no opposition at all between Faith and Works and the establishing of Justification by Faith will in no wise destroy Justification by Works and consequently to use Mr. Woodbridges Expressions there would be nothing but falshoods and equivocations in all the Apostles Disputations against Justification by Works How easily might the Jews and the Apostle I will adde the Papists and Protestants be reconciled They say we must be justified by Works and these say we must be justified by Faith which is a work of ours and such as includes all other works of new Obedience an easie distinction will salve the matter We are not justified by Works as they are conditions of the first Covenant but we are justified by Works as they are conditions of the second Covenant We are not justified by Works as they are our Legal Righteousness but we are justified by Works as they are our Evangelical Righteousness Was it beseeming the gravity of so great an Apostle to raise so sharp a contest about a trifle as the denomination of Works from the first and second Covenant when as the Works are the very same in respect both of the matter and subject Would not all men have censured his Writings to be but strifes of words § 6. His fift Objection is raised from 1 Cor. 6.11 Such were some of you but you are washed but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Where sayes he there is an evident opposition between the time past and present in respect of their Justification And thence he argues Now you are justified Ergo not before or beforâ— you were unjustified To which I answer 1 That the words do not countenance this inference He sayes indeed that in times past they were unsanctified they had been Fornicators Idolaters c. i. e. As vile and wicked as the worst of men for which sins they deserved to be shut out of the Kingdom of God no less then they that are damned He doth not say that they were unjustified before Conversion they were reclaimed or cleansed from those sins by the Preaching of the Gospel but they were justified from those sins in or by the name i. e. The Merit and Righteousness of Jesus Christ which was imputed to them by God whilest they lived in unbelief But 2 if any man will strain this consequence from the words You are justified Ergo You were not whilest you lived in these sins I shall then own the answer which he rejects with so much scorn and contempt That they were not justified before Conversion either in foro Conscientiae or in foro Ecclesiastico not doubting but that I shall sufficiently clear it from his Exceptions § 7. The first of which is Why might they not be said to be exception 1 sanctified before Conversion as well as justified I answer that there is not the same reason for a mans Sanctification before Faith and Conversion as there is for his Justification For 1 to say That an unconverted person is sanctified is contradictio in adjecto but it is no contradiction to 〈◊〉 That an ungodly or unconverted person is justified which is the expression of the Holy Ghost Rom. 4.5 Sanctification consists in our Conversion or turning unto God but our Justification in Gods accounting unto us the Righteousness and satisfaction of his Son the one is a work or act of God done without us 2 Cor. 5.19 but the other is the operation of God within us God cannot sanctifie us without holiness because he cannot do contradictions but God may justifie us if he please without Faith and Inherent holiness because that ex natura rei is no contradiction Our Sanctification flows from Faith as the principle and motive of it 1 John 3.3 4.19 Gal. 5.6 But now our Justification hath not that dependence upon Faith seeing that is Gods act and not ours though we are said to be sanctified by Faith yet not in that sense that we are said to be justified by Faith Faith is Active in the one but Passive in the other it is onely the Hand or Instrument that receives our Justification it is the principle or efficient which operates and produceth our Sanctification 2 Though Justification be sometimes taken for the declared sentence of Absolution in the Court of Conscience yet it follows not that Sanctification should be so understood because the sentence of Justification is terminated in Conscience But Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes. 5.23 Sanctification is not our knowing that we are sanctified but the conformity of our faculties and their operations to the rule of holiness So that his Assertion that Nothing can be alledged for Justification before believing which will not hold as strongly for Sanctification before believing hath nothing but confidence to support it exception 2 § 8. His next Exception is That the Justification they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdom of God which right and title they had not before they believed c. For if they had this right before they believed then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their Salvation and they might have gone to Heaven though they had lived and died without Faith To which I answer 1. That these Elect Corinthians had no more right to Salvation after their believing then they had before For their right to Salvation was grounded onely upon the purpose of God and the purchase of Jesus Christ. Salvation is a 〈◊〉 freely bestowed upon us and not a debt or
no man hath his sins remitted before he doth actually believe As for his Allegation out of Mr. Shepherd Mark those men that deny the use of the Law to lead unto Christ if they do not fall in time to oppose some main point of the Gospel c. It doth not touch us for we deny not the use of the Law to bring men unto Christ we look upon the Law as the Ordinance of God to convince men of their sin and misery and thereby to indear to them the Grace of the Gospel Gal. 3.22 24. We say with the Apostle The Law is good if men do use it lawfully i. e. In a way of subserviency and attendance upon the Gospel the better to advance and make effectual the ends thereof And as we deny not this use of the Law so neither doth our asserting That all the Elect before their conversion and Faith stand actually reconciled to God and justified before him obscure the Gospel I doubt not but the judicious Reader will expect a better proof of this charge then Cranfords word Have all those Reverend Divines before mentioned obscured the Gospel What is the Gospel but the glad tidings that Christ is come into the world to save sinners that by his subjecting of himself to the curse of the Law he hath freed them from the curse who were given him by the Father How is this truth obscured by our saying That God did everlastingly will not to punish his Elect and that in Christ he beholds them just and righteous even whilest they are sinful and wicked in themselves Do not they much more obscure the Grace of the Gospel who make it depending upon terms and conditions performed by us then we that affirm it to be free and absolute They that assign no certain and actual effect to the death of Christ or we that say according to the Scripture that all the Elect were thereby freed from the Law delivered from the Curse reconciled unto God made perfect and compleat in the sight of God And therefore though Dr. Downham doth call it A strange Assertion I shall not be ashamed to own it The Lord complains That the great things of his Law were counted strange Hos. 8.12 We read in Eusebius That the Christian Faith though it were from the beginning was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 New and strange The multitude cast this aspersion upon our Saviours Doctrine Mark 1.27 and the Athenians upon Paul Acts 17.19 20. The imputation of novelty and new fangledness hath been commonly cast upon the truths and ways of God Many things are new in respect of Observation which are not so in themselves We have known that godly men have looked upon some things as very strange which in tract of time have been generally imbraced Dr. Downham no doubt thought it strange that any godly man should say the Angels of the Seven Churches were not Diocesan Bishops and yet I believe Mr. Cr. is not of his Opinion If it were the Doctors meaning That this Assertion of Justification before Faith was never heard to come from the mouth of a godly man before Pemble either his memory was very weak or his charity was too much straitned He could not be ignorant of what hath been alledged out of Calvin Zaâ—che Parker Chamier one of those passages in Chamier before mentioned is cited by the Doctor in that very Book which Mr. Cr. quotes He knew likewise That all our old Protestant Divines have defined Justifying Faith to be a certain perswasion and full assurance of the pardon of our sins from whence it must inevitably follow That pardon of sin precedes our Faith for every object is before its act And as strange as it seemed unto this Doctor he himself sayes little less for in answer to Bellarmine who would prove that a man may be justified without special Faith he granteth It is true in respect of our Justification in the sight of God which special apprehension or application of Christ saith he though scorned by Papists yet it is of all Graces the most comfortable most profitable most necessary most comfortable for the very life of this life is the assurance of a better life most necessary because without this special receiving of Christ first by apprehension and then by application we can have no other saving Grace How can we love God or our Neighbor for his sake how can we hope and trust in him how can we rejoyce or be thankful to him if we be not perswaded of his love and bounty towards us Most profitable because from it all other Graces do proceed and according to the measure of it is the measure of them c. Doubtless That Faith to which these properties do belong doth best merit the name of Justifying Faith So then according to this Doctors Judgement the Assertion is not so strange as true § 6. Mr. Cr. goes on and much faster then a good pace This Opinion says he that the Elect are actually reconciled to God before they believe is confuted in this Treatise and proved contradictory to Scripture fit onely 1 to sow pillows under the elbows of prophane men 2 to overthrow the comfort of Believers destroying the ground nature and end of Faith How solidly it is confuted the Reader will see anon when the weight of his proofs shall come to be examined I doubt not but an impartial Judge will acquit it both from being contradictory to Scripture or guilty of those horrid Consequences which he hath cast upon it I marvel that so rational a man as Mr. Cr. is held to be should say That all this charge is proved part of which is not so much as mentioned by Mr. W. who is liberal enough of his criminations which makes me to think That he writ his Epistle before he read his Author or at least That he is a man that will be satisfied with slender Proofs against persons and Doctrines which he doth not fancy It is true Mr. W. hath endeavored to obtrude upon us some ugly Consequences which are as remote from our Doctrine as Earth is from Heaven Mr. Cr. is not ignorant how much peaceable and prudent men have disliked this practise of wyer-drawing mens Opinions and raking absurdities out of them per nescio quas fidiculas consequentiarum as Bishop Davenant expresseth it By small threds of consequencies which they themselves do disclaim and abhor from their whole heart whereupon sayes that Learned Bishop Good men ought to deal more fairly then to fasten an Heretical sence on other mens words when the Writers themselves which are the best Expounders of their own words can and use to reduce them to a Catholick sence Mr. Cr. knows That the very same Consequences are fathered upon the Doctrine of absolute Election Justification by Faith alone and the certain perseverance of true Believers The Semi-Pelagians of old would have forced this inference from Austins Opinion of absolute
to his people when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant That his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins would deserve The Remonstrants do acknowledge That non-imputation or remission of sin is an immanent act in God Quam Deus in sua ipsius mente efficit We are commanded to forgive one another as God hath forgiven us now we know that our forgiveness is principally an act of the heart As when a man purposeth in himself not to take revenge he doth then forgive But of this we shall have occasion to speak more largely in our Answer to Mr. Woodbridges first Argument 2. That which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification but by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. The Assumption onely will need to be proved which is abundantly confirmed 1 by those places which make mention of Gods unspeakable Grace and Love towards them from everlasting For what is the Love of God but his velle dare bonum his fixed and immutable Will to bestow upon them the greatest good that they are capable of Now when God set his love upon them he said unto them Live Ezek. 16.6 This Will of God did secure them from death and destruction it was a real discharge from condemnation But 2 more plainly from the words of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect. The Proposition is either a Universal Negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or a Universal Affirmative All Elect persons are free from the charge of sin Which way soever we take it is evident That the Proposition is Universal Now if this priviledge did belong onely to Elect Believers as some would limit the Text the Proposition were false for though all true Believers are Elect persons yet all the Elect are not Believers It is as if one should say Omne animal is rationale and to excuse it say That by Omne animal he meant omnis homo and to prove the Expression Legitimate should alledge that homo is often called animal which is true but very impertinent to prove that omne animal may be put for omnis homo § 5. All that I have yet seen alledged against this Member of the distinction That Gods will not to punish is not Justification is of little moment It is objected 1. That hereby Justification and Election are objection 1 confounded I answer That it follows not they may be both of them immanent eternal Acts and yet not confounded For Election and Reprobation are eternal immanent Acts yet they are not confounded Indeed all different immanent acts are but one simple act in God in whose Decrees there is no Priority or Posteriority seeing as Hilary speaks Omnia penès Deum aequabili aeternitatis infinitate consistunt Yet in our consideration they receive sufficient distinction from their various Objects and our various Applicatâ—on of them And thus Election and Justification are distinguished Election includes both the end which is the glory of Gods Grace and all the means from the beginning to the ending conducing thereunto His will not to punish includes precisely and formally onely some part of the means 2. It is objected That Justification imports â— change of the objection 2 persons state to wit Ab injusto ad justum which cannot be attributed to the simple and unchangeable Decrees of God I answer That if Justification be taken for the thing willed viz. The delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law then there is a great change made thereby he that was a childe of wrath by Nature hath peace and reconciliation with God But if we take it for the Will of God not to punish then we say Justification doth not suppose any such change as if God had first a will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his will to a will not to punish them The change therefore of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man in reference thereunto by whose sentence the Transgressor is unjust but being considered at the tribunal of Grace and cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ he is just and righteous which is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person God may be said at the same time to look upon a person both as sinful and as righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature and as righteous in reference to his state by Grace Now this change being but imputed not inherent it supposeth not the being of the Creature much less any inherent difference in the state of the Creature no more then electing love makes any inherent present change Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth objection 3 3. Others have objected That hereby we make void the death of Christ for if Justification be an immanent act in God it is Antecedent not onely to Faith but to the merits of Christ which is contrary to many Scriptures that do ascribe our Justification unto his blood as the meritorious cause To which I answer That although Gods will not to punish be Antecedent to the death of Christ yet for all we may be said to be justified in him because the whole effect of that will is by and for the sake of Christ. As though electing Love precede the consideration of Christ John 3.16 yet are we said to be chosen in him Eph. 1.4 because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him Gods non-punishing of us is the fruit of his death yet his will not to punish is Antecedent thereunto objection 4 4. Others say we may as well call his will to create Creation and his will to call Calling and to glorifie Glorification as his will to justifie Justification We Answer That there is not the same Reason for creating calling and glorifying all which do import an Inherent change in the person created called glorified which forgiveness doth not it being perfect and compleat in the minde of God § 6. These things being weighed in the ballances of an equal Judgment I suppose the phrase would not sound so harsh as it doth to many however were the thing it self granted That there was in God from Everlasting an absolute fixed and immutable will never to deal with his people according to their sins but to deal with them as righteous persons this Controversie were ended For 1 Gods non-imputation of sin to his Elect is not purely Negative as the non-imputation of sin unto
this censure when he hath weighed the reasons I shall give That Faith cannot be said to Justifie by way of disposition or as a passive condition morally disposing us for Justification CHAP. IX That Faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie us for Justification IN regard that the main Point in difference between me and Mr. W. lyes at the bottom of this Answer I shall make it appear we are not said to be Justified by Faith in a Scripture sence because Faith is required of us as a passive condition to qualifie us for justification in the sight of God § 1. That Interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to Faith in the businesse of our Justification then to other works of sanctification cannot be true The reason is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.16.3.11 But to interpret justification by faith meerly thus That Faith is a condition to quâ—lifie us for Justification gives no more to Faith then to other works of sanctification as to repentance charity and all other duties of new obedience which Mr. W. and others of the same affirmation make to be necessary antecedent conditions of Justification Mr. B. includes all works of obedience to evangelical precepts in the definition of Faith in which senâ—e I presume no Papist will deny that we are justified by Faiâ—h alone taking it as he doth for fides formata or faith animated with charity and other good works And therefore Bellarm. disputing against Justification by Faith alone sayes that if wee could be perswaded that Faith doth justifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Justificationem which is granted him if Faith be an antecedent federal condition disposing us for it then we would never deny that love fear hope c. did justifie as well as Faith Dr. Hammond sayes expressely That neither Paul nor James doe exclude or separate faithfull actions or the acts of faith from Faith or the condition of Justification but absolutely require them as the onely things by which we are justified Which in another place he goes about to prove by this argument That without which we are not justified and by which joyned with Faith we are justified is not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our Justification but required together with Faith as the only things by which as by a condition a man is justified But without acts of Faith or faithfull actions we are not justified and by them wee are justified and not by Faith onely Therefore faithfull actions or acts of Faith are not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our Justification but required together with Faith as the onely things by which as by a condition a man is justified It is evident that he and other abetters to this notion attribute no more to Faith in our Justification then to other works of sanctification Now this was witnessed against as an unsound opinion a pernicious error and utterly repugnant to the sacred Scriptures c. by Mr. Cranford amongst the London Subscribers Decemb. 14. 1647 and by Mr. W. himselfe if I mistake not amongst the Subscribers in other Counties It seems by Mr. W. they were bewitched when they gave their hands unto that Testimony § 2. That Interpretation of this phrase which gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature I meane such as may be found in naturall and unregenerate men is not true The Reason is because a man may have such works and yet not be justified But to interpret Justification by Faith that Faith is a necessary antecedent condition of our Justification gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature as to sight of sin legall sorrow c. which have been found in naturall and unregenerate men as in Cain Saul Judas c. I presume Mr. W. will say that these are necessary antecedent conditions in every one that is justified for if these be conditions disposing us to Faith and Faith a condition disposing us to Justification then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification for causae causae est causa causati if these legall works are conditions of Faith they must be according to Mr. Woodbridges Tenet conditions of Justification and consequently they are in eodem genere causae with Faith it selfe quod erat demonstrandum § 3. 3 That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification but Faith considered as a meer passive condition is not in the sence of our adversaries a proper efficient meritorious cause of Justification therefore wee are not said to bee justified by Faith as a passive condition or qualification required to make us capable of Justification The assumption is granted by our opponents at least verbo tenus who doe therefore call it a meer sine qua non which Logicians make to be causa ociosa nihil efficiens and a passive condition to exclude it from all manner of causality in producing the effect though for my own part I look upon conditions in contracts and covenants as proper efficient meritorious causes of the things covenanted which do produce their effects though not by their innate worth yet by vertue of the compact and agreement made between the parties covenanting But of this we shal have occasion to speak more by and by It remains only that I should clear the major that That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification which appears 1. By the use of these Propositions by and through in ordinary speech which note that the thing to which they are attributed is either a meritorious or instrumentall cause of the effect that follows as when we say a Souldier was raised by his valor it imports that his valor was the meritorious cause of his preferment and when we say a Tradesman lives by his Trade our meaning is that his Trade is the means or instrument by which he gets his living So here in the case before us when it is said a man is justified by Faith it implyes that Faith is either the meritorious or instrumentall cause of his Justification as if it be taken objectively for Christ and his merits it is the meritorious cause of our Justification in foro dei or if it be taken properly for the act of believing it is the instrumental cause of our Justification in foro conscientiae 2. From the contrary phrase as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by Works and by the Law without doubt his intent was to exclude Works from any causal influx into our Justification Now that which he denies to Works he ascribes to Faith and therefore Justification by Faith implies that Faith in his sense hath a true causality or proper efficiency in our
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
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
house is no Legal security to a Delinquent so then Gods forgiveness being an act of Authority must neither be an hidden secret purpose in his own heart c. but a formal promulged act Answ. 1. I see no reason why God should not have as much power to forgive without a promulged act as man It was a saying heretofore Papa nunquà m sibi ligat manus they that have supream and absolute power love not to have their hands tyed I wonder therefore that Mr. W. should be so bold as to limit God and to prescribe in what way and manner he must forgive sinners I am sure the Reason which he gives is of little force for Gods forgiveness is no less an act of Charity then mans as these Scriptures Rom 5.8 Eph. 2.4 with many others do sufficiently shew And though God in the act of forgiveness may be looked upon as a Judge yet is he such a Judge as proceeds by no other Law then his own Will And therefore 2 we say That though the forgiveness of Magistrates be by some published act of Oblivion yet it doth not follow That God must proceed in the same manner because the promulgation of an act of Grace is for the direction and limitation of Judges and Ministers of State that they do not execute the sentence of the Law Now in the Justification of a sinner God hath no need of such an act because he is the sole Judge and Justifier himself and therefore the purpose of his Will secures the person sufficiently though his security be not declared and makes the Law of condemnation which depends wholly on the Will of God to be of no force in regard of the real execution of it whether he do plead it or no as in Infants and doubting Christians whose hearts do condemn them some of whom Mr. W. acknowledgeth to be justified Pag. 3. 15. A Judge that hath the Legislative power in his own brest needs no published Edict to absolve an Offender Now God is such a Judge as doth not receive but gives Laws unto all 3 The publishing of acts of Grace is for the comfort of the Offender rather then for any need that the Supream Magistrate hath thereof as to the compleating of his act as for instance the Act of Oblivion was a real Pardon when it passed the house for though Delinquents had no knowledge of their immunity from the penalties which they had incurred before it was published in Print yet the Vote or Sanction of the House did secure them from danger and invalidate the Statutes that were in force against them otherwise Delinquents would be more beholding to the Printer that published that act then to the Parliament that made it So the publication of the New Covenant was for the comfort of Gods Elect and not for their security in foro Dei CHAP. XI Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Second Argument against Justification before Faith taken from our state by nature is answered HIs Second Argument seems to be most weighty which if it be put into a just ballance will likewise be found guilty of a minùs habens The Argument runs thus They that are under condemnation cannot at the same time be justified but all the world is under condemnation before Faith Ergo None of the world are justified before Faith Here I shall 1 enter a Caveat against the Major which notwithstanding his confident Assertion that it must needs be true doth not appear so unto me unless it be limited with this Proviso That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem I mean to the same Court and Judicatory their I shall grant That he who is under condemnation is not justified otherwise we know it often falls out that he that is condemned and hath a Judgement upon Record against him in one Court may be justified and absolved in another he that is cast at the Common Law may be quitted in a Court of Equity Now the Law and the Gospel are as it were two several Courts and Judicatories they that are condemned in the one may be justified in the other they that are sinners in the first Adam may be looked upon as just and righteous in the second There is nothing more ordinary then for Christians at the same time to consider themselves under this twofold relation to wit Their state by Nature and their state by Grace In reference to the former it was that Paul cryed out O wretched man that I am and yet in the same breath he breaks forth into thankful Expressions for his escape and deliverance I doubt not but Mr. W. hath heard many Ministers in their Confessions adjudge themselves sinful and wretched Creatures and yet at the same time plead their Righteousness and Adoption though their translation from one estate to the other was not in that very instant The Law condemns all men living for that all have sinned The Law doth not consider men as Elect or Reprobates or as Believers or unbelievers but as righteous or sinners Believers have no more advantage by the Law then unbelievers the Law will not cease to threaten and condemn them as long as they live It is true Believers can plead their discharge which others may have though they know it not § 2. But if Mr. W. do speak of an absolute condemnation or of such as are condemned by the first Covenant and have no benefit at all by the second we shall then let go the Major and arrest his Minor Proposition But all the world are under condemnation before Faith For God doth not condemn his Elect Children for whom Christ hath died the Holy Ghost witnesseth that Gods will to wit of good pleasure was That none of them should perish or be condemned and if the Judge will quit them who else shall condemn them To whomsoever God doth will Life and Salvation his Will being absolute and immutable they are not lyable to condemnation § 3. The Scriptures brought by him to prove his Minor are forced to go beyond the intention of the Holy Ghost as 1 Joh. 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already He that believeth not is as much as he that never believeth or he that believeth not at any time as Chap. 8.24 If ye believe not i. e. not at all ye shall die in your sins The scope of our Saviour was to obviate those suspitions and jealousies which are lurking in the hearts of men as if God in sending his Son intended not their good but onely laid a design and ambushment for their further condemnation It is no such matter sayes our Saviour God sent not his Son to condemn the world Vers. 17. It is an evident sign that God had no such end in publishing the Gospel For he that believes is not condemned he knows that he is passed from death to life and he that believes not i. e. that finally rejects the Grace which is here offered was condemned long before viz. by the sentence
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.
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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thes. 2.13 some learned men have observed that the phrase is most properly rendered ante tempora secularia i. e. ante multa secula vel sub initio seculorum to wit in that famous promise of the womans seed Gen. 3.15 Now what was that Grace and Life which was given us in the beginning of times but the Grace of Free Justification whereby we are made to stand just and righteous in the sight of God This Grace was revealed more clearly and distinctly in after ages it shined brighter and brighter till the day spring from on high did visit us Whose coming made it perfect day in comparison whereof former times were obscure darkness Joh. 3.19 Eph. 3.5 2 Cor. 3.18 c. And therefore Grace and Life is peculiarly ascribed to the times of the New Testament or the clear exhibition of the New Covenant at the coming of Jesus Christ 2 Tim. 1.10 And the Gospel is said to cleanse and sanctifie men i. e. to justifie them or to purge them from an evil Conscience John 15.3 17.17 § 10. Secondly God hath declared his gracious sentence of non-imputing sin and imputing Righteousness unto his people in his Works and Actions both towards Christ and towards themselves In his actions or dealing with Jesus Christ two ways 1 In charging or transacting all their sins and iniquities upon him Isai. 53.6 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 2.24 The Lord thereby declared his will and purpose not to charge sin upon them for whom Christ interposed himself a surety His imputing of our sins to Christ was formally the non-imputing of them to us Gods accounting of them unto him was a discounting of them unto us for they could not be accounted or charged upon both without a manifest contradiction in the thing it self and in the justice of God as it is that a debt should be wholly accounted to and discharged by the surety and yet the same debt afterward be justly accounted to and charged upon him that first contracted it I confess a debt may be charged both upon the Principal and Surety before it be discharged though afterwards to neither But the case was not so between Christ and us God did not take his Elect and Christ joyntly to make satisfaction or him upon our failing or us upon his but transacted the whole debt upon him alone Now I say the Lord laying our iniquities in such a manner upon Christ singly absolutely and irrevocably he plainly declared thereby that it was his will never to lay them to our charge 2 In that publick discharge or acquittance which he gave unto Christ at his Resurrection the Lord by raising him from the dead and as it were setting him free out of prison openly declared That he had received full satisfaction for all those sins which Christ as a surety had taken upon him viz. For all the sins of all the Elect. And for this reason as an eminent Divine observes the Lord sent an Angel to remove the stone from the mouth of the Sepulcher not to supply any want of power in Christ who could himself have rouled it away with one of his fingers but as a Judge when the Law is satisfied sendeth an Officer to set open the prison unto him who hath made that satisfaction So the Father to testifie that his Justice was fully satisfied with the price which his Son had paid sent an Officer of Heaven to open the prison doors and to set him free Christs Resurrection was a solemn judicial act whereby God the Supream Judge justified both him and us 1 Him from all those sins which he had undertaken whereunto our Divines do apply these following Scriptures Isai. 50.8 9. 1 Tim. 3.16 Acts 13.35 Heb. 9.21 2 Us from our own sins The Resurrection of Christ was as Mr. Parker says well an actual Justification of all them for whom he became a Surety for 1 he was not justified from any sins of his own being in himself just and innocent but from those sins which were charged upon him in his death which saith the Prophet were the iniquities of us all Isa. 53.6 If a debt be discharged it cannot without manifest injustice be charged again the discharge of the Surety is the discharge of the Principal God by acquitting Christ from the guilt of our sins did also fully acquit us from the same 2 Christ in his Death and Resurrection was a common person as in his death he was condemned for our sins so in his Resurrection he was justified from our sins All the Elect were justified in his Justification there is the same reason for their Justification in Christ as there is for the Condemnation of mankinde in Adam Therefore sayes the Apostle Rom. 5.18 us by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so or in like manner by the Righteousness of one Man Christ the Free-gift came upon all men viz. All in Christ unto Justification of Life § 11. Besides the General Declaration of Forgiveness unto all the Elect this Gracious Sentence is also declared to particular persons 1. Externally in foro Ecclesiae by the Sacrament of Baptism the Minister of Christ standing in his stead by Dipping or Pouring water upon a person doth in his Name or by his Authority declare and publish the washing away of his sins by the Blood of Christ The principal thing which Baptism holds forth is our Justification it was ordained for the remission of sins Luke 3.3 and Acts 2.38 not to obtain or procure this benefit ex opere operato but to declare and obsignate unto men their interest therein In Rom. 6.3 4 5. we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism and to be implanted thereby into the similitude of his Death and Resurrection The meaning is That our Communion in the benefits of both is hereby ratified and confirmed to us Upon this ground I conceive it was That in the old Liturgy persons baptised are said to be regenerated or born again i. e. Translated into a new state viz. From the old Adam into the new Adam From the power of darkness to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ Col. 1.13 Which Baptism doth not effect but declare and seal it having no other cause but the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ Tit. 3.5 1 Pet. 3.21 1 John 1.7 The late Assembly in their Directory say as much viz. That Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace of our ingrafting into Christ of our union with him of our remission of sins c. It is strange to me That they who say Baptism is a Seal of our Justification and hold that Infants who have not Faith ought to be baptised should deny that Justification precedes Faith Now though this Declarative Sentence be but ministerial and meerly of order like the power of loosing John 20.23 applied to Hypocrites to the greatest part of them that are baptised whether they be Infants
or adulti yet to all the Elect to whom the effects of the Covenant and Seals do onely really belong it is real and absolute It is no other then the Sentence of God himself declaring his non-imputation of sin unto them and their deliverance from death by Jesus Christ § 12. 2. Internally in foro Conscientiae at their effectual Vocation when the Lord by the Preaching of the Gospel doth powerfully perswade their hearts to believe in Christ for the Elect themselves before Faith have no knowledge or comfort either of Gods gracious volitions towards them or of Christs undertakings and purchases in their behalf In which respect they are said to be without Christ and without God in the world Eph. 2.12 and Gal. 4.1 They are compared to an Heir under age who differs nothing from a Servant though he be the Lord of all By Faith we come to see that everlasting love wherewith we were loved and that plenteous Redemption which Christ hath wrought for us for which cause Faith is called The evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 And God is said thereby to reveal his Righteousness from Heaven to us Rom. 1.17 And to reveal his Son in us Gal. 1.16 Now in this sence men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the medium or Instrument whereby the Sentence of Forgiveness is terminated in their Consciences which is daily made more plain and legible by the operation of the Spirit sealing and witnessing unto them their peace and reconciliation with God Whereas unbelievers look on God as their enemy and consequently all their life time are held in bondage through the fear of wrath A true Believer hath peace liberty and boldness towards God he looks upon all the Promises as his own inheritance interprets the Providences of God even those which Reason would construe in another sence to be Fruits of Love and not of Wrath. § 12. Now because this Declarative Sentence by Faith is like the name written in the White Stone Revel 2.17 Which no man knoweth saving he that hath it Many whom the Lord doth justifie are accounted by the world to be but Hypocrites others again are justified of men who are not justified in the sight of God the Lord therefore hath another way of justifying his people to wit In foro mundi when he shall publickly and in the hearing of the whole world pronounce that gracious sentence Come ye blessed of my Father c. Matth. 25.34 Whereunto some have referred those words of the Apostle Acts 3.19 Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. But who so pleaseth to consult with Erasmus Beza and Ludovicus de Dieu upon the place shall finde there is a great mistake in our English Translators and that no such thing was intended there by the Holy Ghost I grant that the sins of the Elect may be said to be then blotted out not that the remission of their sins shall be put off or is not compleat till the last day and till they have performed all the conditions required of them but because this gracious sentence shall be then publickly declared and shall bring forth its Eternal Effect of Life and Glory And in this sence I conceive those Scriptures may be understood which speak of our Justification as a future thing as Rom. 3.30 2.13 c. § 13. Now though we have ascribed Justification unto several times or periods yet do we not make many Justifications Declared Justification whether it be in foro Ecclesiae in foro Conscientiae or in foro mundi is not another from that in the minde of God but the same variously revealed as an Acquittance in the heart of the Creditor and in a Paper a pardon in the heart of a Prince and inrolled is one and the same this manifested and the other secret and though there are never so many Copies written forth in several hands they do not make many Acquittances or many Pardons being but the Transcripts of one Original So though God doth at sundry times and in divers manners declare his well-pleasedness towards his people yet is their Justification but one and the same which is perfect and compleat at once being his fixed and immutable will not to deal with them according to their sins but as Just and Righteous Persons By that which hath been said it doth appear in what sence we assert The Justification of Gods Elect before they believe Now what little weight there is in those Objections which are commonly brought against this Assertion will be more manifest when we have examined Mr. Woodbridges Treatise Whos 's first quarrel against us is for that as he conceives we give too little unto Faith P. 2. But as it is no disparagement to the Blood of Christ that it doth not move and incline God to love us or to will not to punish us so it is no disparagement to Faith to say That it doth not concur with the Blood of Christ in obtaining our Justification but that by apprehending the Gospel it reveals and evidenceth to us that Justification which we have in Christ the proof whereof is the task of the next Chapter wherein I doubt not but I shall be able through the help of God to put by all those wretched consequences which Mr. W. hath endeavored to father upon this Position That Faith serves to evidence to us our Justification CHAP. VIII Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Exceptions against our saying That Faith or the act of believing doth justifie no otherwise then as it reveals and evidenceth our Justification are Answered THe first Charge which he brings against this Gloss as he calls it is That it is guilty of a contradiction to the Holy Ghost It is well known sayes he that the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians sets himself on purpose to assert the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in opposition to Works The Question between him and the Jews was not Whether we are declared to be justified by Faith or Works but whether we are justified by Faith or Works in the sight of God or before God And he concludes That it is by Faith and not by Works c. Though all this be granted yet it proves no contradiction to the Holy Ghost in our Assertion We acknowledge that the Question between the Apostle and the Jews was not about the declaring of our Justification nor about the time when we are justified no nor about the condition upon which we are justified but concerning the matter of our Justification or the Righteousness whereby we are justified or by which we are accounted righteous Now the result of his dispute is That we are justified by Faith and not by Works but then the Question will be How Faith is to be taken whether sensu proprio or metonymico whether we are to understand it
Justification 3 From other parallel phrases in holy Scripture where we are said to be redeemed justified and saved per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera All which doe signifie That Christ and his sufferings are the true proper and meritorious cause of these benefits and so it must bee understood when wee are said to be Justified by Faith and not that Faith is but a sine qua non or meer cypher in our Justification Faith objectively taken is a proper meritorious cause of our Justification § 4. 4 I shall make use of my adversaries weapon of that very medium which Mr. W. last alledged page 8. That interpretation of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in the formall act of our Justification is not true because our Justification in respect of efficiency is wholly attributed unto them Rom. 8.33.4.6.8.3 24. The internal moving cause was his owne grace and the onely externall procuring cause is the death of Christ there is no other efficient cause besides these We can be no more said to justifie our selves then that we created our selves But to make Faith a condition morally disposing us to Justification maks us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification 1. We should not be justified freely by his grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification for a condition as Mr. Walker observes well whensoever it is performed makes the thing covenanted a due debt which the promiser is bound to give and then as he infers Justification should not be of grace but of debt contrary to the Apostle in Rom. 3. and 4. 2. If Faith were a condition morally disposing us for Justification we should then be concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in procuring our Justification for the merits of Christ are not a physical but a moral cause which obtain their effect by vertue of that Covenant which was made between him and the Father now by ascribing unto Faith a morall causall influx in our Justification we doe clearly put it in eodem genere causae with the blood of Christ which I hope Mr. W. will better consider of before he engageth too far in Mr. Baxters cause § 5. That interpretation of this phrase which makes Works going before Justification not onely not sinful but acceptable to God and preparatory to the grace of Justification without controversie is not according to the minde of the holy Ghost For as much as the Scripture frequently declares that no mans Works are acceptable to God before his person is accepted and justified the Tree must be good or else the fruit cannot be good Luke 6.43 44. Mat. 12.33 Joh. 15.5 That of Aug. is sufficiently known Opera non precedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum the old orthodox doctrine taught in these Churches here in England was that works before Justification are not pleasing unto God neither doe they make men meet i◠do not qualifie or morally dispose them to receive grace and we doubt not but they have the nature of sin I could muster up a legion of orthodox Writers to defend this Tenent that no qualification or act of ours before Justification doth prepare or dispose us for Justification Nay the Councel of Trent confesseth that none of those things which precede Justification whether it be Faith or other Works doe obtain the grace of Justification But to interpret Justification by Faith that Faith is a condition which doth qualifie us for Justification necessarily supposeth a Work or Works before Justification which have not the nature of sin but are acceptable to God and preparatory to grace viz. the grace of Justification which is most properly called Grace § 6. That interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which involves a contradiction is not to be admitted but to say Faith is a passive condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction Ergo The proposition is undeniable and the Assumption is to me as cleare To be both active and passive in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction Now that is active which is effective which contributes an efficacy whether more or lesse to the production of the effect A condition though in the Logical notion of it it hath not the least efficiency and therefore Aristotle never reckoned this sine qua non in the number of causes yet in the use of the Jurists as we are now speaking of it it is a morall efficient cause which is effective of that which is promised upon condition Chamier hath well observed That omnis conditio antecedens est effectiva he that performes the least condition imaginable for having of any benefit is active and passive in obtaining of it We will look after no other instance then that which Mr. W. hath set before us An offender against our Lawes that is saved by his Clergy or by reading his Neck-verse he is not passive but active in saving of his life he may properly be said to have saved himselfe his reading being not onely a physicall act but a morall efficient cause which makes that favourable law to take effect To say he is passive because he made not the Law nor sits as Judge on the Bench to absolve himselfe is but a shift to blinde the eyes of the simple seeing that when more causes then one concur to an effect the effect may be denominated from the lowest that which doth least is an active efficient cause nay in this case the Malefactor doth more in saving of his life then either the Law or Judge for though pro forma he acknowledgeth the grace of the State and the courtesie of the Judge unto him yet as the Welch-man that was bid to cry God blesse the King and the Judge cryed God blesse her father and mother who taught her to read intimated he was more beholding to his reading then to the courtesie of the Judge for else the Judge would have been severe enough his mercy would have deserved but little thanks I must needs tell my Old Friend Non loquitur ut Clericus We say such a man is Passive in saving his life who is not required to read or perferm any other condition but receives a pardon of meer Grace In like manner he is Passive in his Justification that doth nothing at all towards the procuring of i◠he that performs the least condition in order thereunto is not onely Physically but Morally active in obtaining this priviledge For though he did not make the Law by and according to which he is justified nor pronounce the sentence of Absolution upon himself yet he hath a subordinate or less principal efficiency in producing the effect nay a learned man whom I hope Mr. W. will not think more worthy to be derided then disputed with tells us That he that performs conditions for Justification doth more to his
with the second Adam He performing the terms of agreement between the Father and himself made the Law of Condemnation to be of no force against us Gal. 3.13 4.5 Which New Covenant and not the Conditional Promise as Mr. W. would have it is called The Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 And the Law of Righteousness Ch. 9.31 It is called a Law because it is the fixed and unalterable Sanction of the Great God or else by way of Antithesis or opposition to the Covenant of Works The Law of Righteousness it being the onely means whereby men do attain to Righteousness and are justified in the sight of God and the Law of Faith because it strips men of their own righteousness to cloath them with Christs and thereby takes from men all occasion of boasting in themselves whereas if men did attain to Righteousness by vertue of this Conditional Promise He that believes shall be saved they would have as much cause of boasting in themselves as if they had performed the Law of Works That saying of his with which he closeth this Argument is wide from truth That every man is then condemned or stands condemned in foro Dei when the Law condemns him for then all men living are condemned seeing the Law condemns or curseth every one that sins and there is none that lives without sin Either he must say Believers do not sin and then Saint John will give him the lie 1 Joh. 1.8 or else That Believers are not justified which is contrary to the Scripture last cited by himself Joh 5.24 with a thousand more In what sence the Elect Ephesians were called Children of wrath will more fitly be explained in the next Chapter § 4. In the mean time we will adde a few Reasons against the main support of this Argument That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a declared published act to wit by that Signal Conditional Promise He that believes shall be saved Which when a man hath performed the condition he may plead for his discharge Against this Notion I shall offer to the Readers serious consideration these following Arguments First If Justification be not by works then it is not by this or any other Conditional Promise which is a declared discharge onely to him that performs the condition i. e. That worketh But Justification is not by works which we have wrought but an act of the freest grace and bounty Col. 2.13 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle useth to express the forgiveness of sin ascribes it solely to the Grace of God without Works or Conditions performed by us § 5. Secondly If Justification be by that Signal Promise He that believes shall be saved then none were justified before that gracious sentence was published which was not till our Saviours Ministery in the flesh nor was there any sentence of Divine Revelation like it which the people of God could plead for their discharge from the Law from the fall of Adam until the publication of that subservient Covenant in Mount Sinai which is the tenor of the Law of Works the Lord never made any Conditional Promise which they could plead for their discharge and absolution from sin the promises to Adam Noah Abraham were not conditional but absolute Now if there were no Justification till God had made some conditional promise which men upon performing the condition might plead as their legal discharge I marvel into what Limbus Mr. W. will thrust the Fathers of the Old Testament For they that were not justified were not saved But the Scripture gives us more hope shewing that they were saved by the same grace as we are Acts 15.11 God accepting them as righteous in Jesus Christ who in respect of the vertue and efficacy of his death is called The Lamb slain from the foundations of the world Revel 13.8 For though this rich Grace were not revealed to them so clearly as unto us Eph. 3.5 1 Pet. 1.12 Yet the Effects and Benefits thereof descended upon them unto Justification of life no less then to the Faithful in the New Testament The Argument in short is this If the Fathers of the Old Testament were justified who yet had not any such declared discharge then Justification is not by a declared discharge but the Fathers of the Old Testament were justified c. Ergo. § 6. Thirdly If Justification be onely by a declared discharge then Elect Infants insensible of this Declaration and unable to plead their discharge from any such promise have no Justification I hope Mr. W. is not such a durus pater infantum as to exclude all those from Justification that die in their infancy which he must necessarily do if he makes Justification to consist in that which they are utterly uncapable of § 7. Fourthly The making Justification a declared discharge detracts from the Majesty and Soveraignty of God For as much as it ascribes to him but the office of a Notary or subordinate Minister whose work it is to declare and publish the sentence of the Court rather then of a Judge or Supream Magistrate whose Will is a Law And by this means Justification shall be opposed not to condemnation but to concealing or keeping secret § 8. Fifthly If Justification were by a Conditional Promise as a declared discharge then it would not be Gods act but our own God should not be our Justifier but we must be said to justifie our selves For a Conditional Promise doth not declare one man justified more then another but the performance of the condition So that a man should be more beholding to himself then to God for his Justification § 9. Sixthly We may argue a pari Forgiveness amongst men is not necessarily by a declared discharge Ergo Gods is not for there is the same reason for both and therefore we are bid to forgive one another as God for Christs sake hath forgiven us Eph. 4. ult i. e. heartily or from the heart as the Apostle elsewhere explains it Col. 3.17 Not in word or in tongue but in deed and in true affection Mans forgiveness is principally an act of the Heart and Minde A man forgives an injury when he layes aside all thoughts of revenge and really intends his welfare that did the same his heart is as much towards him as if he had not done it And therefore Gods forgiving of a sinner is not necessarily a declared absolution God may justifie or acquit a person though he doth not declare his reconciliation with him § 10. Mr. Woodbridge foresaw the force of this Reason and therefore hath wisely laid in this Exception against it Indeed to our private forgiveness one of another being meerly an act of Charity there is no more required then a resolution within our selves to lay aside our thoughts of revenge c. But the forgiveness of a Magistrate being an act of Authority must be by some formal act of Oblivion c. A Vote in the
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