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
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
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
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
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
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
any reall sweetnesse in Christ and the Gospel but must needs have some evidence of his interest propriety and title to him Now because as Dr. Ames observes by this act of Faith wherewith we rest and rely upon Christ proposed to us in the Gospell we doe immediately attaine to the assurance of this Truth that my sins in particular are pardoned by Jesus Christ therefore some have seemed to speake as if this Proposition I am Justified my sins are forgiven me were the proper object of Justifying Faith I shall not stand to defend this Expression though the Doctor doth highly approve of it Nor will I quarrell with Mr. W. about his Expression though I conceive his terme Axiomatical is somewhat too narrow for Faith may be said to evidence our Justification immediately though it doth it not Axiomatically but Organically to wit as it is the organ or Instrument whereby we doe apprehend and adhere unto Christ by whom we are justified in the sight of God the latter term is more adequate to the nature of Faith which is not only the assent of the Mind but the adhesion of the Will to the object beleeved But I shall yeeld him his term and do say that Faith may be said to evidence our Justification Axiomatically yet not by assenting to that which is not revealed but by assenting to and withall tasting and relishing those indefinite and general Propositions Invitations and Promises that are held forth to us in the Gospell which by a secret and inscrutable worke of the Holy Spirit are applyed and made particular to the soule of a true beleever for otherwise he could never taste any sweetnesse in them So that Mr. Woodbridges exclamation against a carnall presumptuous and soule-damning Faith is altogether impertinent seeing we doe not say that a man is justified by his assent to written and therefore much lesse to unwritten verities If Justifying Faith were no more then an Axiomaticall assent as Mr. W. seems to intimate it is I see no reason why all they that have such a Faith as Devils and Reprobates who beleeve with an historical assent should not be justified this is really the carnall presumptuous damning Faith of the world § 8. His second reason against Faiths evâ—dencing our Justification Axiomatically is nothing to the purpose The Faith saith he by which we are justified is the Faith which the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel are to preach to the whole world and to presse it upon their consciences Act. 20.21.13.38.39 But we cannot presse upon every man in the world to beleeve that he is Justified c. Seeing we do not presse every man to beleeve that he is justified though according to our commission given us from Christ we do presse all men to beleeve 1. Assensu intellectus to acknowlege that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of Sinners that they themselves are such and that it is impossible for them to escape the curse by any other means 2. Amplexu vel motu voluntatis to accept embrace and cleave unto Jesus Christ being infinitely better for them then all the world besides By this it will appear what little reason Mr. W. hath to charge us with pressing men to believe a lie seeing we require no mans assent to any thing which is not true We do not press every man to believe That he is justified but to believe that there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification and to relie upon him and him alone for this Benefit § 9. So that there will be no need for Mr. Eyre to retract his Sermons as falshoods which he hath formerly preached against Universal Redemption For though the command of believing be to be pressed upon all men in that manner as hath been shewn yet it will not follow that Christ died for all men It seems Mr. W. is offended at those Sermons of mine since he hath had a smack of Mr. B. notions That Christ died conditionally for all men yea for the Reprobates themselves which though it be countenanced with the names of Cameron Testardus and Amyraldus of some others who are of great note amongst our own yet may I have leave to speak my minde I conceive it to be very unsound For 1. To say that Christ died for any upon an impossible condition is to say That he died in vain at least so far or in respect of them which the Apostle looks upon as a gross absurdity Gal. 2.21 2. For whom Christ died he without doubt purchased Faith and all necessary good things This the Apostle accounts unquestionable Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own Son but gave him to death for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things What is Mr. Woodbridges Judgement in this point I cannot tell nor doth it much matter that I should enquire I need not inform him what advantage they that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sence do make of his Doctrine of a Conditional Justification impetrated by the death of Christ It is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they have to shelter their heads withal when they are pressed That if Christ died for all then all shall be saved because it must needs be that Christ must have the purchases of his death John 11.42 Isa. 53.11 No say they it will not follow because some do not perform the condition required on their parts These two Propositions Christ redeemed all men and yet the impenitent unbelieving and reprobate World shall never be saved by him may be easily reconciled because the benefits of Christs death are given upon condition not absolutely and therefore they that do not perform the condition shall never be saved by his death It were easie to shew that this salvability or conditional Salvation is the very Corner Stone in the Remonstrants building § 10. This passage puts me in minde of two absurdities which Mr. J. Woodbridge my Antagonists Brother who a while after came and preached over his Brothers Arguments with some small Additions charged upon our Doctrine The first was That it doth necessarily infer Universal Redemption Will it follow That because the Elect are justified in forâ— Dei before they believe therefore all men are redeemed and justified One may as well reason Some men were elected before they believed Ergo All men were elected Perhaps he will say we cannot press or exhort every man to believe That he is justified unless all men are justified There is no more necessity that we should press every man to believe that he is justified then that he is elected This is pitifully inconsequent The second was That it raseth the Foundation of all actions tending to the gathering and reforming of Churches why should any be excluded from Church Ordinances if they are justified 1 I must tell him That I cannot think him an hearty friend to the gathering and reforming of Churches who
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
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
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
though he started aside as well as Saul yet the Covenant made with him was not thereupon dissolved and broken § 8. 3. Because if there were any condition required in the New Covenant to intitle us to the Blessings of it it would not be a Covenant of pure Grace so that the asserting of conditions in the New Covenant doth by necessary consequence overthrow the nature of it for as Austine hath observed Grace is not grace unless it be every way free and the Apostle before him Rom. 11.6 If by grace then is it no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace but if it be of works then is it no more grace Our Salvation is ascribed to Grace not onely inclusively but exclusively Ephes. 2.8 9 Tit. 2.5 All the Blessings of the New Covenant are called Gifts Rom. 5.17 18. 6.23 and gifts that are given freely 1 Cor. 2.12 Rom. 3.24 To give a thing freely and conditionally are contradictories he that parts with any thing upon conditions doth as it were sell it The works and conditions which men perform in the Prophets phrase are their money Isai. 55.1 2. A condition performed makes the thing covenanted for a due debt which the promiser is bound to give so that if the Blessings of the Covenant did depend upon conditions they would not be of grace but debt and men by performing those conditions would be at least in part their own Saviours Now what can be imagined more derogatory to the Grace of God Object True may some say it would derogate from the grace of God if we attributed such a meritoriousness unto these conditions as the Papists do unto works but we do not do so To which I answer 1 That the Papists assert no other works and conditions to be necessary to Justification and Salvation then what our Adversaries do 2 Neither Papists nor Arminians do ascribe any more meritoriousness to works then our opponents They grant there is such an infinite distance and disproportion between the Blessing promised and the conditions required of us that in strictness of Justice they do not deserve it onely expacto seeing God is pleased to promise so largely upon condition of so small a pittance of service we may be said to merit by performing the condition and in this sence Mr. Baxter will tell you That the performers of a condition may be said to merit the reward The Papists never pleaded for merit upon any other account Mr. Calvin observed long ago how much they please themselves with this simple shift supposing that hereby they shall evade whatsoever Arguments are brought against them Though Mr. B. seems to mince the matter calling his conditions but a sine qua non and a Pepper corn c. he attributes as much if not more to works then the Papists Arminians and Socinians have done the Papists will not say That works do merit in a strict and proper sence Smalzius calls their fides formata a meer sine qua non and a known friend to the Remonstrants Doctrine amongst our selves dubs it with no better name then a sleight unconsiderable despicable Pepper corn most pitifully unproportionable to the great rent which God might require and to the infinite treasure of glory he makes over to us And again That mite of Obedience Faith and Love But now Mr. B. goes a step beyond them in that he ascribes a meritoriousness to works which the Arminians and Socinians have not dared to do 3 I would ask whether the condition required of Adam were meritorious of eternal life I presume no man will say it was in a strict and proper sense there being no proportion between the work and the wages but yet that condition did lessen the freeness of Divine Grace The Grace of God was not manifested so much in saving man in that way as in giving life unto him freely And therefore to put our Justification and Salvation upon the same terms must necessarily eclipse the Grace of God in the New Covenant Object But some may say there is a great difference the conditions required of Adam were legal conditions but the conditions which we stand for and assert in the New Covenant are Evangelical Conditions I answer That the sound of words doth nothing at all alter the nature of things all conditions performed for life are legal conditions The precepts both of Law and Gospel have the same matter though not the same end but when Gospel duties are made conditions of Justification and Salvation there is no difference Object Yes may some say Evangelical conditions are more facile and easie then the Legal were Are they so Let them consider again whether it be more easie for a man that is dead in trespasses and sins to believe in Christ to love God to hate sin to mortifie his lusts c. then it was for Adam in his innocency when he had a natural inclination to obey God to abstain from the fruit of one Tree when he had a thousand besides as good as that there can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was But if it were so yet would the reward be debt and not grace As he that hath his peny by contract hath as much right to it though he labored but an hour as if he had endured the heat of the whole day We say Gradus non variat speciem it is not more grace but all grace that doth denominate the Covenant a Covenant of Grace § 9. To these Reasons there might be added many more which because they have been mentioned before upon another occasion I shall not stand upon them 4. Because all the pretended conditions of the Covenant are promised in the Covenant Now it is absurd to make any thing a cause of itself or a means and condition whereby it is procured 5. Because the asserting of conditions in the Covenant attributes unto men a power and ability to do good not onely before they are justified but before they believe For if all the promises of the Covenant are conditional then the promise of Faith is conditional and consequently a man must be supposed able to perform some good and acceptable work to God before he believes whereas without Faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Conditions in a proper sence do necessarily infer the liberty of mans will unto that which is good for as the Remonstrants do define it A condition is a free act which we absolutely may perform or not perform by Freewil not acted by the predeterminating grace of God A Conditional Covenant and Freewil are inseparable the former supposeth the latter Whether Mr. W. will own the Consequence I am not able to say however that there is no such power or ability in the Natural man to do that which is good might be irrefragably demonstrated from sundry Scriptures as Gen. 6.5 Eph. 2.1 2. 1 Cor. 2.14 2 Cor. 3.5 Rom.
in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who do conceit the contrary I know not what could be spoken more contradictory to many plain Scriptures which shall be mentioned anone more derogatory to the full atonement which Christ hath made by his Death and more disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the whole weight of their Salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing And therefore after the Exercise was fully ended I desired the Minister that Preached that with his leave and the patience of the Congregation I might remonstrate the insufficiency of his Grounds or Reasons to uphold the Doctrine he had delivered three of which I took more especial notice of One was drawn from the parallel between the first and the second Adam As men said he are not guilty of Adams sin till they have a Being so the Elect have no benefit by Christ till they have a Being whereunto he added those old Philosophical Maxims Non entis non sunt accidentia and Accidentis esse est inesse Another was That where there is no union there can be no communion but there is no union between Christ and the Elect before they believe Therefore the Elect have no communion and participation in the benefits of Christs death before they have a Being and do believe in him The proof of the Assumption was managed thus The union between Christ and the Saints is a personal union which cannot be supposed till their persons have a Being A third ground upon which he laid the greatest stress was to this purpose The Elect have no benefit by Christ before they do believe because God hath made a Covenant with his Son That they for whom he died should be admitted to partake of the Benefits of his death by Faith § 6. Whereunto my Replies were to this effect I told him that I conceived his first Allegation made very much against him For if the Righteousness of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle shews it doth Rom. 5. Then it must follow That the Righteousness of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a Being and then much more before they do believe in him for it is evident that Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation before they had a Being for by that first transgression sayes the Apostle vers 12. Sin entered into the world And more plainly Death passed upon all men The Reason follows because in him or in his loyns all have sinned Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is All that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a Being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that shall be saved were constituted righteous his obedience being imputed unto them by God before they had any Being otherwise then in him as their Head and common Person There is a late Writer who tells us that there is not the same Reason for the imputation of Christs Righteousness to all the Elect before they believe as there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a Being Because says he the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way but the issues of Christs death do come to us in a supernatural way But this Reason seems to me to be of small validity for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed unto none until they are actually propagated and the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate Parents as they do from Adam so that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernatural way i. e. By vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unless they can shew any Proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flow as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force But to return to my discourse with Mr. Warren I added That those Logical axioms non entis c. have no force at all in the present Controversie It doth not follow that Christs Righteousness cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created Being because accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects for as much as imputed Righteousness is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not necessarily require our existence Christ is the Subject of this Righteousness and the imputation of it is an act of God Now the Apostle hath observed That God in justifying and imputing Righteousness calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4.17 As the Righteousness of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarks before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say That Christs Righteousness is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a Being § 7. As to his second Reason before mentioned I excepted as I conceive but justly 1. Against his calling our union with Christ a personal union which seems to favor that absurd notion That a believer loseth not onely his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the Nature and Person of the Son of God Divines do call our union with Christ a Mystical and Spiritual union because it is secret and invisible to be apprehended by Faith and not by Sense or Reason but the Hypostatical or Personal union is proper unto Christ in whom the Divine and Humane Nature do constitute but one Person 2. Against his Assertion proposed Universally That there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe for though there be not that conjugal union between them which consists in the mutual consent of parties yet is there such a true and real union that by means thereof their sins do become Christs and Christs Righteousness is made theirs God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ and all the Elect to be as it were one Heap or Lump one Vine one Body or Spiritual Corporation wherein Christ is the Head and they the Members Christ the Root and they the Branches Christ the First Fruits and they the residue of the Heap In respect of this union it is That they are said to be given
Explication of the Epistle to the Ephesians upon those words Chap. 2.5 He hath quickned us together with Christ says That all the Elect who are the Members of Christ when he by his death had expiated their sins were freed from the guilt of eternal death and obtained a right to eternal life Chamier hath much to this purpose Nobis potius est persuasissimum c. We are most certainly perswaded that our sins are pardoned before we do believe for we deny that Infants do believe and yet Infants have their sins forgiven And a little before viz. Chap. 6. of the same Book I deny saith he that Faith is the cause of our Justification for then our Justification would not be of Grace but of our selves but Faith is said to justifie not because it effecteth Justification but because it is effected in the justified person And in another place to the same purpose Faith doth neither merit obtain nor begin our Justification for if it did then Faith should go before Justification both in nature and time which may in no wise be granted for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification now there is no Sanctification but after Justification Quae re natura prior which is really and in its own nature before it Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier saith That Faith concurs no otherwise to Justification then in respect of the passive application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ unto himself but not in respect of the active application whereby God applieth unto man the Righteousness of Christ which application is in the minde of God and consequently from eternity Dr. Macouvius Professor of Divinity at Franeka hath a whole Determination to this purpose to prove that Justificacation actively considered or as it is the act of God blotting out our sins and imputing the Righteousness of Christ unto us goes before Faith Indeed he makes it to be not an immanent but a transient declared act which the Lord did when he first promised to send his Son to be our Mediator Gen. 3.15 Though one of our late Writers mentions this Doctors Opinion with much contempt and oscitancy calling his Assertions Strange senceless and abhorred which is the less to be regarded seeing he usually metes out the same measure unto all men else whose notions do not square with his own mould as to Dr. Twisse Mr. Walker and them that hold the imputation of Christs active Righteousness whom he calls A sort of ignorant and unstudied Divines c. Yet as he hath merited fairer usage amongst Christians for his other Labors So I dare say his Arguments in this particular will not seem so weak and ridiculous as Mr. Baxter maâ—â— them to an indifferent Reader that shall compare them with the Exceptions which he hath shaped unto them sharp Censures are but dull Answers Dr. Ames his Colâ—eague sayes no less who in his Marrow of Divinity having defined Justification to be the gracious Sentence of God by which he doth acquit us from sin and death and account us Righteous unto life he sayes That this sentence was long before in the minde of God and was pronounced when Christ our Head arose from the dead 2 Cor. 5.19 And in another place All they for whom Christ in the intention of God hath made satisfaction are reconciled unto God I might produce many others that are of eminent note who have asserted That all the Elect are reconciled and justified before they believe Now were all these Champions of Truth a pack of Antinomians and Libertines Hath Mr. Woodbridges humanity no better language to bestow upon them If he shall say he doth not mean them yet his reproaches do fall upon them for if Titius be an Antinomian for saying That the Elect are justified before they do believe Sempronius is an Antinomian who affirms the same § 6. Mr. Burges a man somewhat profuse in this kinde of Rhetorick seems willing to excuse some of those fore-mentioned Divines who have asserted the Remission of sins before Faith because they did it in a particular sence to oppose the Arminians who maintain a reconciliability and not a reconciliation by the death of Christ. But I believe he is not ignorant that Divine Truths are not to be measured by mens intentions let mens ends be never so good they cannot make Error to be Truth or if they are never so corrupt they cannot make Truth to be Error Nor do they whom he calls Antinomians assert Justification before Faith in any other sence then in respect of the absolute and immutable Will of God not to deal with his people according to their sins and in respect of the full satisfaction of Jesus Christ who by that one offering of himself hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified i. e. them whose sins are purged by his blood I could shew how frequently he and others have wounded some of our most eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety through the sides of Antinomians Mr. Burges in his Book of Justif. p. 219. calls it An Antinomian Similitude to say That as a man looking on the Wall through Red Glass conceives the Wall to be of the same colour so God looking upon us in Christ seeth nothing but the Righteousness of Christ in us and no sin at all Which Similitude is used by Dr. Reynolds in his Excellent Treatise on the 110 Psalm where he doth plainly assert that Doctrine which Mr. Burges condemns for Antinomianism Mr. Baxters Character of an Antinomian will bring all our Protestant Writers under this censure For with him they are Antinomians who hold 1 That our Evangelical Righteousness is without us in Christ or performed by him and not by our selves Or 2 That Justification is a free act of God without any condition on our part for the obtaining of it Or else 3 That Justification is an Immanent act and consequently from eternity which was the Judgement of Alsted Pemble Twisse Rutherford c. Or 4 That we must not perform duty for Life and Salvation but from Life and Salvation or that we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation the end of our endeavors but obey in thankfulness and because we are justified and saved c. Now let any man who is moderately versed in our Protestant Writers but speak on whom this Arrow falls I might instance in many others but I will not put the Reader unto so much trouble § 7. My business at present is to acquit this Doctrine of Justification in foro Dei before Faith from Mr. Woodbridges charge of Antinomianism And truly I wonder that he should give it this name For 1. It hath not the least affinity with the Antinomian Tenents which as they are related by Sleiden were That the Law is not to be Preached to bring men to Repentance or unto the sight of their sins That what ever a mans life be
us totally passive in this work Rom. 3.24 26. 8.33 Eph. 2.8 We can no more justifie our selves then raise our selves from the dead Eph. 2.1 5. or then we could give our selves a being when as yet we were not Vers 10. Man is so far from being the total or principal Cause of his Justification that he is no cause at all by ascribing the least causality or efficiency to man in his Justification we derogate from the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. § 4. Others do take Faith in a proper sence as the Papists Socinians and Remonstrants amongst whom though there be some difference in Expression yet they all agree in this That by Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith is meant the act or habit of Faith or such a Faith as is accompanied with faithful Actions The Papists say That Faith and other inherent Graces though in their own nature they do not deserve Justification yet through the merits of Christ and Gods gracious acceptance they do procure and obtain the forgiveness of our sins Though they ascribe a meritoriousness to Faith it is but in a qualified sence Faith saith Bellarmine doth but Suo quidem modo mereri remissionem after a manner merit remission scil By vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant who hath annexed forgiveness unto this condition If a King saith he doth promise a Beggar a thousand pound a year upon no condition then indeed the Beggar doth not deserve it but if it be upon condition that he do some small matter as to come and fetch it or to bring him a Posie of flowers then he doth deserve it because the promiser is bound unto performance And in this sence Mr. B. ascribes a meritoriousness to works But the chief difference between them and us lies in this We say a man is justified by the imputation of Christs Righteousness they That we are justified by inherent Righteousness or by doing of Righteous Actions such as are Faith Love Fear c. Ipsa fides in Christum saith Bellarmine est justitia Faith it self is our righteousness And that it doth justifie us impetrando promerendo inchoando â—ustificationem Arminius and the Remonstrants though they have exploded the word merit yet they attribute as much to Faith and faithful Actions as the Papists themselves Dico saith Arminius ipsum fidei actum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputari in justitiam idquè sensu proprio non metonymicè The very same is affirmed by Vorstius Bertius Episcopius and the rest of the Remonstrants Their Opinion in brief is this That God in the Legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to perform Which say they is procured by the merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect faith to be perfect Righteousness § 5. Some of our late Divines who seem to disclaim the Doctrine of the Papists and Arminians say the very same who explain themselves to this effect That Faith doth justifie as a condition or antecedent qualification by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God The fulfilling of which condition say they is our Evangelical Righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God Mr. B. is so fond of this notion That although in one place he findes fault with the length of our Creeds and Confessions yet he would have this made an article of our Creed a part of our Childrens Catechisms and to be believed by every man that is a Christian so apt are we to smile upon our own Babes Though I honor Mr. Baxter for his excellent parts yet I must suspend my assent to his new Creed I shall prove anon That Faith is not said to justifie as an antecedent condition which qualifies us for Justification but at present I shall onely render him the Reasons of my disbelief Why I cannot look upon Faith as that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified I shall not insist upon it though it be not altogether unconsiderable that this notion is guilty of too much confederacy with the aforenamed enemies of the Christian Faith for though it is no good Argument to say That Papists Socinians c. do hold this or that therefore it is not true yet it will follow That such and such Tenents have been held by Papists c. and unanimously opposed by our Protestant Writers therefore they ought to be the more suspected and especially such Tenents of theirs as are the cheif points in difference between us and them as this is Our Brethren that have started this notion do take Faith as the others do in a proper sence they attribute as much to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere as Bellarmine Arminius or any other Faith it self says Mr. B. is our Righteousness There was never any Papist so absurd as to say That our Faith Love c. are perfect Legal Righteousness but that God judicio misericordiae non justitiae doth account and accept of it instead of perfect Righteousness For my part I must confess that I can see no dâ—fference between them but in Expression The Papists do acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ and that he is the meritorious cause of our Justification They say indeed That we are not justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed but by a Righteousness inherent in us or righteous actions performed by us And what do our Brethren say less less then this But I shall not follow the Parallel any further § 6. The Reasons which turn the Scales of my Judgement against this notion That our Faith or Faithful Actions are that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified Are 1. If we are not justified by our own works then our believing c. is not that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified but we are not justified by our own works Ergo. The Assumption is written with a Sun beam throughout the Scripture Tit. 3.5 Not by works of Righteousness which we have done Rom. 11.6 If it be of Works then were Grace no more Grace It is the cheif scope of the Apostle throughout this and the Epistle to the Galatians to prove That we are not justified by works The sequel of the Proposition is as evident Because Faith and Obedience to Gospel Precepts are our works It is man that believes and obeys and not God though we do them by his help and assistance yet they are our acts or works so that consequently we are not justified by them in the sight of God The Papists to elude the force of this Argument say That the minde of the Apostle was onely to exclude from Justification works of Nature and not of Grace works which we our selves do by our own strength without the help
a Stone or other Creatures which are not capable of sinning but Privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of Righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentiâ The difference between these is as great as between a mans will not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted and his will not to require any thing of one that never did nor will ow him any thing 2 This non-imputation of sin is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being in like manner the imputation of Righteousness is actual though the Righteousness to be imputed is not actual Man whose thoughts arise de novo doth non-impute usually after the commission of a fault but for God who is without any shadow of change and turning so to do is absolutely impossible for as much as there cannot arise any new will or new thought in the heart of God 3 This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable Will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it and he in like manner imputing Righteousness none can hinder it Neither doth this render the death of Christ useless which is necessary by the Ordinance of God as a meritorious cause of all the effects of this Justification even as the eternal Love of God is compleat in it self but yet is Christ the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Eph. 1.3 4. And therefore we say § 7. 2. That if Justification be taken as most commonly it proposition 2 is not for the Will of God but for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Though there be no cause of the former out of God himself for the merits of Christ do not move God to will not to punish or impute sin unto us yet is Christ the meritorious cause of the latter It is from the vertue of his Sacrifice that the obligation of the Law is made void and the punishments therein threatned do not fall upon us By his death he obtained in behalf of all the Elect not a remote possible or conditional reconciliation but an actual absolute and immediate reconciliation as shall be proved anon And in this respect all that were given unto Christ by the Father may be said to be justified at his death not onely virtually but formally for the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor Their discharge from the Law was not to be sub termino or in Diem but present and immediate it being impossible that a debt should be discharged and due at the same time We acknowledge That the effects of this discharge from the Law may be said to be sub termino or in Diem As for instance from that full satisfaction and perfect Righteousness which Christ hath performed there arise these two things One is The non-execution of the desert of sin which we continually commit upon us That whereas the Reprobate sin and upon their sin the curse with all the evils included in it is upon them The Elect likewise sinning yet for Christs sake the curse or evil of suffering is not inflicted upon them which non-punishing quoad effectum is forgiving and not imputing sin And in this sense God is frequently said to forgive when he doth not inflict punishment and in this sense also he is said often to forgive The other is The imputation of Righteousness in the effects of it whereby the effects of a true and perfect Righteousness come upon the people of God to wit All good things both for this life and that which is to come yea those things which seem to be evil and hurtful as their falls and afflictions are ordered by the over-ruling hand of a wise and powerful Providence to work together for good unto them These effects are immediate in respect of causality though not of time for though God doth not presently bestow them but as he sees fit both for his own glory and for their good yet do they immediately slow from the merit of Christ in regard there is no other meritorious cause that intervenes and concurs therewith in procuring of them Notwithstanding we say That our discharge from the Law must needs be immediate and present with the price or satisfaction that was paid for it in regard That it implies a contradiction a debt should be paid and discharged and yet justly chargable But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter § 8. 3. Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution proposition 3 and forgiveness And thus God is said to justifie men when he reveals and makes known to them his Grace and Kindness within himself And in this sense do most of our Divines take Justification defining it The declared sence of absolution and not improperly For in Scripture phrase as was noted before things are then said to be when they are declared and manifested the declaring of things is expressed in such wise as if it made them to be whereof many instances might be given a very plain one there is Gen. 41.13 Pharaohs cheif Butler speaking of Josephs interpretation Me says he he restored and him i. e. the Baker he hanged whereas he did but declare these successes unto them So God is said to justifie his people when he manifests and reveals to them that mercy and forgiveness which before was hidden in his own heart to wit that he doth not impute their sins but contrariwise doth impute Righteousness unto them Now the Lord at sundry times and divers ways hath and doth declare and manifest this precious Grace unto his people 1 More Generally towards all his Elect and 2 more Particularly to individuals or numerical persons The former is done 1 in the Word of God and 2 in his Works and Actions § 9. First God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to his people in his Word The Gospel or New Covevant being an absolute promise as we shall shew anon may be fitly termed a Declarative Sentence of Absolution unto all the Elect to whom alone it doth belong the publication of the New Covenant is their Justification For which cause Maccovius makes Justification to Commence from the first promise which was pronounced before the curse So that if Adam had not been a publick person including both the Elect and Reprobate there had been no curse at all pronounced save onely upon the Serpent or Satan in reference to this promise it was that the Apostle saith The Grace of God 2 Tim. 1.9 and eternal life Tit. 1.2 was given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie eternity as our Translators carry it but the beginning of time it is of the same latitude with 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
Faith in the propitiation and atonement of Jesus Christ whereby their defects and obliquities are done away § 6. 4 Whereas he addes That it was a poor answer which I gave to Mr. Good That God was well pleased with his Elect whilest unregenerate though not with their unregeneracy 1. As far as it concerns my self I shall subscribe to his censure I am poor but he is rich I am empty but he is full But 2. he may be pleased to take notice that a far richer man then himself in all kinde of learning both Humane and Divine hath given the very same answer unto this question Mr. Pemble distinguisheth between Gods love to our persons and Gods love to our qualities and actions A distinction which sayes he parents are well skilled in who put a difference between the vices and persons of their children those they hate these they love even when for their vices they do chastise their persons The case sayes he is the same between God and the Elect his love to their persons is from everlasting the same nor doth their sinfulness lessen it nor their sanctity increase it because God in loving their persons never considered them otherwise then as most perfectly holy and unblameable in Jesus Christ c. It is a strange inference which he draws from my words That because I said God is well pleased with the persons of his Elect whilest unregenerate that afterwards he is well pleased with their unregeneracy also He might as well impose this absurdity upon the Prophet that because he saith Ezek. 16.8 Thy time to wit of unregeneracy was the time of love Surely not of their unregeneracy but of their persons then unregenerate that therefore the Prophet supposeth that after their Conversion God did love their unregeneracy or that corruption of nature which remained in them Such quibbles are unbeseeming serious Christians § 7. I shall adde but a word to clear up the difference between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons And first we say that the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful which though they are pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight Prov. 5.8 Tit. 1.15 Isai. 1.13 c. Secondly Though as the Orthodox acknowledge the best works of the best men have not in them that Inherent purity and holiness which can stand before God without the mediation of their High Priest yet they may be said to be acceptable and pleasing unto God not onely comparatively because they are better then the works of unregenerate men or then the sinful works of such as are regenerate but absolutely and that two ways 1. Abstractly and in themselves or as they ought to be done and thus Faith Hope Love c. are acceptable to God for they are that spiritual worship and service which God looks for and delights in Joh. 4.23 Micah 6.8 Gal. 5.5 6. Phil. 3.3 And in this respect a meek and a quiet spirit is said to be of great price in the sight of God 1 Pet. 3.4 2. Concretely as they are acted by us or do pass through our hands and so they are acceptable to God as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 Our spiritual sacrifices are made acceptable to God in Jesus Christ or by his taking away the sin and defilement that adheres unto them Our High Priest doth not procure the acceptance of those works which in their whole abstract nature are sinful such as are all our works before Conversion and the fruits of the flesh after Conversion he obtains forgiveness but not acceptance for them But now those works which come from the Spirit of God and are sinful onely through the mixture of our corruptions as sweet water which passeth through a sink these he makes acceptable to the Father by taking away the imperfections and defilements that adhere unto them § 8. The next Scripture which Mr. W. hath brought in by way of objection against himself is Rom. 5.10 When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son To which he answers That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled Against this answer of his I shall offer these Exceptions 1 It offers a manifest violence to the Text to say That we were reconciled is as much as we shall be reconciled when we have performed the terms and conditions required of us 2 If our reconciliation to God did depend upon terms and conditions performed by us then is it not through the death of Christ that we are reconciled unto God we should be more the cause of our reconciliation then Christ is for he that performs a condition to which a benefit is promised doth more to the procuring of it then he that makes or obtains that conditional grant notwithstanding which he is never awhit the near of the benefit unless his own act do concur 3 The Apostle declares That this reconciliation was made when we were enemies Ergo Before our believing or the fulfilling of any condition on our part For Believers are not enemies 4 If his meaning were no more then this that it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will that we are reconciled then this clause when we were enemies would be superfluous and redundant whereas the main emphasis of the Text doth lie therein as is evident from the gradation which the Apostle makes Vers. 6 8 10. 5 The Apostle in 2 Cor. 5.19 affirms That our Saviour did not onely pay the price of our reconciliation but that God did so far accept of or acquiesce therein that upon the payment of it he did not impute our sins unto us i. e. he justified us for the Apostle Rom. 4. defines Justification to be the non-imputation of sin 6 And lastly That which he grants yeelds the matter in question viz. The immediate actual reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ for if Christ by shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtor is free in Law it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid § 9. Secondly To illustrate and confirm his Answer he makes use of Grotius his distinction of three moments or periods of the Will of God 1 at Enmity 2 Appeasable 3 Appeased 1. Before the consideration of the death of Christ God saith he is at enmity with the sinner though not averse from all ways and means of reconciliation 2. After the consideration of the death of Christ and now is the Lord not onely appeasable but doth also
of sins according to the riches of his grace not according to any condition performed by us he having obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9.12 And 2 Cor. 5.18 19. a place which we have often mentioned the Apostle shewes that Christ by his death made such a reconciliation for us as that God thereupon did not impute our sins unto us which was long before any condition could be performed by us Elsewhere That Christ by himselfe purged and expiated our sins Heb. 1.3 and afterwards set downe as having finished that worke chap. 10·12 Now sin that is fully purged and expiated is not imputable to the sinner The same Apostle addes that Christ by his sacrifice hath for ever perfected all them for whom it was offered Heb. 10.14 And in another place that he hath made them compleat as to the forgivenesse of their sins Col. 2.10 13 14. In Rom. 8.33 34. He argues from the death of Christ to the non-imputation of our sins Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth it is Christ â—hat dyed whereas notwithstanding sin would have been chargeable upon them and they condemnable if the death of Christ had not procured their discharge without the intervention of any condition performed by them CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Replyes to the second Objection as he cals it concerning our being Justified in Christ as a common person are examined THe Argument was proposed by me at the time of our Conference in this manner They that were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved were Justified before they beleeved But many were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved Ergo Mr. W. denyed both Propositions The major I proved in this wise If Christ was justified before many â—hat are in him doe beleeve then they that are in him were â—â—stified before they beleeved But Christ was justified before many that are in Christ do beleeve Ergo. His answer hereunto as I remember was I deny all And therefore the Assumption was confirmed from Isa. 50.8 9. in this manner Christ was justified at his resurrection but that happened before many of them who are in Christ as a common person doe beleeve Ergo That Christ was justified at his resurrection is clear from this Text He is near that justifieth me c. Which words I said were uttered by the Prophet in the person of our Saviour in the time of his greatest humiliation who comforted himselfe with this that the Lord would shortly justifie him which was to be done at his Resurrection when the Lord publickly declared to all the world that he was acquitted and discharged from all those sins which were laid upon him and which he as a Surety undertook to satisfie The sequel of the major was also proved by this Enthymem The acts of a common person doe belong unto them whom he represents whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such is to be attributed to them in whose stead he stands and therefore if Christ were justified all that were in him were justified also For seeing that he was not justified from his own but from the sins of others all they whom he represents were justified in his Justification Whereunto hee replyed That Christ was not justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant which did lead us to that discourse of the New Covenant which is afterwards mentioned of which in its place § 2. We shall now take a view of his Replyes to this Argument which we find in his printed copy And 1. he distinguisheth of a threefold Justification 1 Purposed 2 Purchased and 3 Exemplified all which are before Faith So then by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith Which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed It may be he will say as Arminius doth that neither of these were actuall Justification which were a poor put off for as Dr. Twisse observes Omnis Justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de Justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of Justification simply there is no man but understands it of actuall Justification And first That which he cals Justification purposed in the Decree of God is reall and actuall Justification for if Justification be Gods will not to punish or to deal with his Elect according to their sins as both the Psalmist and Apostle do define it then when Gods Will was in actual being their Justification was actual It is absurd to say That God did decree or purpose to will any thing whatsoever his Will being his Essence which admits no cause either within or without God 2 We have shewn before that Justification being taken for the effect of Gods Will to wit our discharge from the Obligation of the Law it was actually because solely and absolutely obtained by the death of Christ there being no other cause out of God which concurs to the producing of this effect § 3. The third Branch of his distinction Justification exemplified is terminus redundans a member that may well be spared for 1 there is not the least hint thereof in Holy Writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or pattern of our Justification For though he is proposed to us as an example in acts of Moral Obedience yet in his works of Mediation he was not so in these he was not an exemplary but a meritorious procuring cause an example is proposed to be imitated and therefore we are frequently exhorted to imitate our Saviour in works of Sanctification but we are no where bid to imitate him in our Justification or in justifying our selves It was needless he should be a pattern of our Justification for this pattern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not unto God because he needs no pattern or example to guide or direct him 2 He that payes our debts to the utmost farthing and thereupon receives a discharge is more then a pattern of our release Our real discharge is in his as our real debt was upon him And therefore his Grand-father Parker said well That Christs Resurrection was the Actual Justâ—fication both of him and us 3 If Christ were onely a pattern and example of our Justification then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ were but a pattern of our Justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed and therefore his Justification must be from his own sins or else the example and counterpart do not agree 4 This expression intimates that as Christ was justified by performing the conditions required of him so we
things whatsoever which we stand in need of and are good for us Now I say that Promise or Covenant by vertue whereof we obtain both Grace and Glory good things present and future is not conditional to us I say to us for to Christ it was conditional though to us it be free to him it was a Covenant of Works though to us it be a Covenant of pure Grace there is not so much as one blessing doth descend to us but he hath dearly bought it even with the price of his own blood for which cause he is called the Mediator Witness and Surety of the New Covenant § 2. 2. When we say the New Covenant is not conditional we understand a condition in its proper and genuine sense as the Jurists use it in reference to mens contracts and bargains A condition saith Dr. Cawel is a rate manner or Law annexed to mens acts or grants staying and suspending the same and making them uncertain whether they shall take effect or no. And our English Papinian Conditio dicitur cum quid in casum incertum qui potest tendere ad esse aut non esse confertur To the same purpose the Expositor of Law terms A condition is a restraint or bridle annexed and joyned to a promise by the performance of which it is ratified and takes effect and by the non-performance of it it becomes voide the person to whom it is made shall receive no commodity or advantage by it Hence is that Maxime amongst Lawyers Conditio ad impleri debet priusquà m sequatur effectus i. e. The condition must be performed bâ—fore the Grant or Promise becomes valid In this sense we say The Covenant which God made with Adam was conditional God annexed to the promise of Life the condition of Obedience Do this and thou shalt live The stability and success of that promise did depend upon his performing of the condition he failing in his part the promise became voide Now we deny that the blessings of the New Covenant do depend upon this or any other condition to be performed by us Lawyers do distinguish of a twofold condition 1 Antecedent and 2 Consequent The Antecedent condition being performed doth get or gain the thing or estate made upon condition the Consequent condition doth keep and continue it As for instance If I fell a man a Farm on condition he shall pay me five hundred pounds present and forty shillings nay be it but six pence per annum for the future the payment of the five hundred pounds is the Antecedent condition which gives him possession of the Farm the forty shillings or six pence per annum is the Subsequent condition and that continues his possession and if he fail in this latter the Estate is forfeited and in Law I may re-enter upon the Farm as if no such bargain had been made between us Now we say further That the Blessings of the New Covenant require not onely no Antecedent but no Subsequent condition to be performed by us there is nothing on our parts that procures our Right and Interest nor yet that continues and maintains our interest in them The Lord Jesus is both the Author and the Finisher of our Salvation it is by and through him that we are made Sons and doe continue Sons are made Righteous and doe continue Righteous that we Obtain and do Injoy all the effects of the New Covenant § 3. I am not ignorant that the word Condition is sometimes taken improperly for that which is meerly an Antecedent though it contributes not the least efficiency either natural or morall towards the production of that which follows it A condition properly taken is a moral efficient cause which produceth its effect by vertue of some compact agreement or constitution between persons omnis conditio antecedens est effectiva a condition properly so called is effective of that which is promised upon condition Now I say not onely conditions in a proper sense but all certaine and constant Antecedents though they are not expressed or included in their Federal constitution so as that the Promise doth depend upon them may in a vulgar sense be called conditions of those things that follow them and in this sense our Divines doe commonly call one benefit of the Covenant a condition of the another as that which is given first of that which is given after Thus Dr. Twisse makes inherent holinesse to be causa dispositiva or the sine qua non not of Justification but of Salvation or Glorification because the one alwaies precedes the other Many other do expresse themselves in the same manner It is evident that some benefits of the New Covenant in their execution and accomplishment doe follow others though we have a right unto them all at once for as much as that flowes immediately from the purchase which Christ hath made yet we have not possession of them all at once but in that order and manner as God is pleased to bestow them Christ hath procured both Grace and Glory for his Elect yet he gives Grace i. e. Gracious Quallifications as Knowledge Faith Love c. before he brings them to the possession of Glory in which sense I conceive it is that the Scripture annexeth Salvation unto Faith and other works of inherent Holinesse Matth. 5. pr. Heb. 12.14 c. because these are certain and infallible Antecedents in all that shall be saved none who live to years of understanding are saved but they that doe beleeve the Gospell and shew forth the fruits of it in a suitable conversation If in this sence onely Faith and Repentance be called conditions of the Covenant to wit because they are wrought in all those that do injoy the ful effect of the Covenant I will not contend § 4 Yet I think it fit rather to forbear this expression 1 Because it is so improper to call a part of the Covenant the condition of it Chamier though he often useth the expression yet hee acknowledgeth that Faith is called a condition verbis minus propriis And a little after Fidei conditio non est antecedens sed consequens non est causa salutis sed instrumentum apprehendendi gratiam i. e. Faith is not a proper antecedent condition but an improper or consequent condition it is not a cause of salvation but only the instrument whereby we receive and apply it Mr. Rutherford himselfe though he cals them Libertines and Antinomians who say the Covenant of Grace is not conditionall yet almost in the same breath he hath let fall these words To buy without mony and to have a sight of sin is the condition of our having the water of Life but the truth is it is an improper condition for both wages and worke is Free Grace I confesse improper locutions ought to be borne with when they serve to illustrate truth but this I conceive doth exceedingly darken it 2 Because of the advantage
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