because he saith it and so there is an end When the Apostle saith Phil. 1 v. 28. And in nothing terrified by your adversaries which is to you an evident toaken of salvation he pointed at something which might be looked upon as a ground for hope of glory must we also leane to that in justification After some lines wherein after his usual manner he must extravage he saith And such as feel Christ after this manner raised and reigning in them have a true ground of hope to beleeve that they are justified Which is very true because these works of Christ are inseparable fruites and effects of Justification After some few words againe to no purpose he tels us that Borhaeus Claudius Albericus Inuncunanus Essius three whose books I never saw and whose names I never heard before I read this Quakers book are for Justification by this Revelation And he calleth them Protestants but if so I have read of some Papists more sound then they are if their meaning be one and the same with this Quakers And finally he citeth some words of Mr. Baxters Aphorismes But he cannot be ignorant that Mr Baxters notions in this particular are little satisfying beside that Mr Baxter himself will have none citeing that book as expressing his plaine and full meaning And if he would put the mater to the issue of tryal by humane testimony we should give him Twenty for one 38. Now followeth his Third proposition wherein he asserteth two things first That good works seing they naturally proceed from this birth as heat from the fire are absolutely necessary unto justification as a causa sine qua non in which we are justified and without which we cannot be justified Secondly That such good works are pure and perfect These he cometh to prove Pag. 144. c. And they would appear to be a contradiction for seing good works are the fruites of this birth and by the birth we are justified good works must follow justification and so cannot be a cause no not a causa sine qua non for even a causa sine qua non must be before the effect Againe what is that to say in which we are justified Is the meaning only that these works are approven of God we upon the account of them so farr as they are done according to a Gospel rule What will this say for justification of State whereof we are here speaking finally How can it be said that without good works we cannot be justified seing we are justified by the Birth and the Birth is but the cause of good works and so it hath been said that good works are the Effects and Consequences of Justification This would suspend justification until good works appeared so we should be justified by the Biâ—th only Initially or in a preparatory way but not fully And further in this he is worse then Papists who will not say that the good works by which we are justified are such as can stand before Gods tribunal if He follow the strick rigour of Law and not the Gospels admixture of mercy 39. Let us hear his proofs The first is our of Iames 2. whence he frameth this Argument If no man be justified without faith and no faith be lively and valide unto justification without works then works are necessary unto justification But the former is true c. Answ. 1. Though it be true that no man at least come to yeers of discretion is justified without faith as an instrumental cause laying hold on and applying Christ and his righteousness yet this faith is not the Causa formalis objectiva of justification and far less can works be a part of this cauâ—e seing they are but fruites and consequences of this faith 2. These words and no faith is lively and valide unto justification without works may admit of a double sense either the meaning may be that no faith is valide unto justification but that which is true and lively and apt to produce good works or that no faith is valide unto justification but that which is actually produceing good works and in so far as it is attended with good works If the first be the meaning then it is apparent that good works cannot be said to be necessary unto justification as a cause thereof for it may be in actual â—eing when they are but in potentia If the last be the true sense this place of Iames will not evince it for Abraham was justified before he offered up his Son Isaac And then it would follow that no man is justified in his sleep or when he is not actually doing some good work 3. Thus we see and the place of Iames is clear for it that good works are only necessary in the person justified and necessary to prove the truth and reality of a justifâ—ing faith to the man self and to others And so notwithstanding hereof that is alwayes true that the Scripture saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousness Iames 2 23. Gen. 15 6. Rom. 4 3. Gal. 3 6. 40. His second proof is from several Scriptures as Heb. 12 14. Mat. 7 21. Iohn 13 17. 1 Cor. 7 19. Revel 22 1â— and he thus frameth it If these only shall enter into the Kingdom who do the will of the Father if these only be called wise builders blessed that do the sayings of Christ c. then good works are necessary to salvation and to justification The former is true c. Answ. Not to quarrel at the Proposition as containing words in it which are not in the places cited We shortly answ that not one of these places speak of Justification or mention the necessity of works thereunto But only of their necessity unto final salvation which we deny not And if his Argument hold no man shall be justified before he be in heaven All therefore that can hence be concluded is that good works are necessary in the person justified in order to glory but not that they are necessary unto justification 41. These two are all his arguments and how slender proofs they are of what he undertook to prove let any judge He cometh in the next place § 10. to answere some Objections The first is taken from Luk. 17 10. When ye have done all that is commanded say we are unprofitable servants Which is a clear proof that our works being but a doing of that which is commanded and so a doing of duty and such as bring no advantage unto God as a reparation of his Glory or satisfaction to his justice for the wrongs done and therefore can have no interest in that which is the causa formalis objectiva of our justification or in that which we must lean to as the ground of our justification before God or in that upon which we may expect absolution from the sentence of the Law and freedom from the wrath and curse of God due for the breach of
These sound ill to Christian ears 44. So 33. we may thus reason Either Christ's Redemption is Conditional and Universal as to the Price laid down and Satisfaction made or as to the Application and Actual bestowing of the benefites purchased But neither can be said to the advantage of the Adversaries cause for if the last be said we willingly grant that some of the benefites as Justification Adoption and actuall Glorification are conferred in a manner conditionally but some as faith and the New heart are given absolutely and this cannot help the Adversaries cause for they will not say that either all have faith bestowed upon them or that all are by believing Justified and Adopted c. and so this is not Universall and if the first be said to wit That Christ laid down his life Conditionally it must be said that Christ did not lay down his life Absolutely but upon some condition and what can that Condition be upon which the death of Christ was suspended If it be said that the faith of those to whom it was to be preached was the condition then it must be said that Christ did not die untill these beleeved or that his death was no satisfaction or price untill they actually beleeved and then the Father could not be well pleased with the price as a satisfaction until mens Faith came to make it an Actual price which is both absurd and contrary to Scripture If it be said That Christ did absolutely lay down his life a satisfactory Ransom and that for all yet so as none that would not fulfill the condition should be redeemed I Answer If it was an Absolute satisfactory Ransome and accepted as such something must have been purchased thereby and all behoved actually and really to be delivered from the Law and from the curse or from something by vertue of that Absolute Price and they could not be made to pay over againe what was payed by the price of his blood for Justice could not call for two satisfactions And if all were upon this Absolute Price payed Redeemed from the Law the Curse and the Sentence of the first Covenant no man shall now die for that broken Covenant If it be said No man was Absolutely delivered even from that but only Conditionally I Ans. How then was it an Absolute Price Or what was purchased thereby If it be said That a possibility of Freedom was absolutely purchased Ans. This was rejected above and the Scripture inferreth Actual Redemption from Christs purchase He shall justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities Esai 53 11. which saith That all whose iniquities he did bear shall be Actually and Really Justified by him and not have a meer Possibility of justification 45 Further 34. We may thus argue If Christ died for all and every one He either died for all Absolutely or Conditionally The first cannot be said for the reasons already adduced militate against that Nor can it be said that He died for all Conditionally for then either he died to purchase Life and Salvation to all upon condition of their performance of something proposed as a Condition or to purchase salvation and all the meanes thereunto or conditions thereof Conditionally But neither of these can be said Therefore c. The major is clear from this that the enumeration is full and no other way can this Conditional Redemption be conceived or explained The minor may be thus confirmed The first way cannot be said to wit that life and salvation was purchased to all upon a condition to be by them performed that is upon Condition of their believing for either this Condition is in the power of every son of Adam or not if it be not in their power as all but Pelagians will confess then this Redemption is no Redemption for a Redemption of Captives upon a condition impossible to them is as good as no Redemption Nor can the last way be said to wit that Redemption and all the Conditions and Means thereof were Conditionally purchased for what can be assigned as the Condition of these Conditions And though there were a Condition of the Lords working of faith assigned which yet we finde not in Scripture yet that would not help the matter for that Condition of faith would it self be a mean to salvation and so purchased Conditionally upon another Condition and that other Condition must be purchased upon another Condition and so in infinitum which is absurd 46. As also 35. this is considerable That the asserting of Universal Redemption goeth not alone but there are several other Universalities also affirmed and maintained either as Consequences or Concomitants or Grounds thereof which the Scripture knoweth not such as these 1. An Universal Love and Philanthropie towards all and every one without any difference which they lay down as the ground of the Sending of Christ to die for all indiscriminatly 2. An Universal Will in God to save all which they call an Antecedent Will and hold forth as a Velleity or a wish and desire that all might be saved as if God could not effectuat whatever he desired or could have a velleity towards any thing which either he could not or would not effectuat 3. An Universal Predestination conditional which expression Amerald used untill the Synods in France did disswad him therefrom 4. An Universal gift of all to Christ or an Universal gift of Christ to all that is a Will and purpose that Christ should lay down his life for all and Redeem all at least Conditionally 5. An Universal Justification conditional And why not also an Universal Salvation conditional 6. An Universal Covenant of grace made with all mankinde in Adam wherein is a free universal deed of gift of Christ first and of Pardon Spirit and Glory in and by him to all Mankinde without exception upon condition of acceptance as also an offer of Faith Repentance Conversion with all the conâ—equâ—nces thereof 7. An Universal will in God to call into this Covenant and unto the Participation of the benefites thâ—reof all and every man 8. An Universal execution of this will or promulgation of this Gospel or New Covenant unto all and every one by common favours and benefites bestowed or all whereby all are called to believe in a mercâ—ful pardoning God and all have abundance oâ— Mercies and Meanes of Recovery and of life for the Lord now governeth the world only on termes of grace 9. Upon this followeth an Universal Command to all men to use ceâ—taine duties and meanes for their Recovery by Faith and Repâ—nâ—ance 10. An Universal pardon of the first Sin so far at least that no man shall perish for the meer Original sin of Nature alone unless he adde the rejection of grace 11 Hence followeth an Universal Judgment and Sentence on all in the great day only according as they have performed the new Gospel conditions 12. Some also adde an â—niversal Subjective Grace whereby all are enabled to performe the conditions of
Chapter Answ. This Argument is fit for a Quaker and for a desperat cause but a wise man will laugh at it But saith he There should be concord betwixt light and darkness and betwixt righteousness unrighteousness if men were said to be in Christ by an imputative righteousness without them while they are actually unjust Ans. He knoweth that though we say persons are justified only by a righteousness imputed whereby they are declared to be really righteous in the sight of God accepted of as such Yet we say with all that the same persoâ—s are really sanctified that sanctification is inseparably joyned with Justification And so the discord is in his owne imagination But he loveth to drink in Bellarmines muddy waters He saith that Christ would never in all his sermons have people resting upon such a righteousness but did alwayes recommend to them good works as instruments of Iustification Ans. This is a notorious untruth See Ioh. 6 29. 9 35 36. 10 38. 12 36. 14 1. 16 9. Nor do we regard his saying that to his observation there is no mention of the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Scriptures For his observation is small and of little worth But were he as much acquanted with the Scriptures as he is with Popish writers and Quakers vanities he would be in case to speak otherwayes However we know this is Bellarm argument de Iustif. lib. 2. c 7. And Protestants have abundantly confuted it pointing him to Rom. 4 5 6 11. 5 18 19. 2 Cor. 5 19 21. Rom. 3 23 24 25 27 28. Ier. 23 6. 1 Cor. 1 30. 24. His second proposition followeth Pag. 135. which is this That by this inward birth or Christ formed within we are formally justified That is in Bellarmines words That Inherent righteousness is the formal cause of our Iustification Let us heare what way our Quaker proveth this He adduceth 1 Cor 6 11. which is Bellarm. 3. Argument But what saith he of this place Iustification here saith he must be understood of making really just And if by really just he mean inherently just as he must or speak non-sense I enquire why so Otherwise saith he washing and Sanctification must be also understood imputatively What necessity is there for this for saith he in the foregoing verses the Apostle was shewing how no unrighteous person shall inherite the Kingdom of God Very good what then And here he subsumeth saying such were some of you c. And what then And because they were now washen and sanctified therefore they were also justified Though this may be true in one sense to wit that their sanctification and washing was a proof and evidence that they were justified because all justified persons are also sanctified and washen Yet it is not true in the Quakers sense to wit that by their Sanctification they were justified that is really made inherently just and thereupon justified And where findeth he his because and therefore in the text He proceedeth for if this justification were not real And who saith that it is imaginary or a fictitious thing He should have said if this justification were not a making inherently holy then it might be said that the Corinthians not having left their evil courses but abideing in them were justified Ans. This consequence is false and hath no appearance of truth in it we say with him that there was a real change upon the Corinthians and that their faith was not a meer fruitless assent but this real change was in Sanctification and not in Justification 25. He tels us next very gravely that he could never read or see nor with any colour of reason conceive what could evince justification to be here taken imputatively And what wonder seing no man ever spoke of a justification here taken imputatively As if there were two justifications one real another imputative will he name the man that speaketh so But if his meaning be that he never read nor saw nor could conceive what could evince Justification to be taken here in the orthodox sense We cannot help it for when men put out their own eyes or give up themselves to the Devil that he may do it what remedy Justification with we being alwayes at least most rarely otherwise in Scripture taken in a farensical sense And though it were granted that here and some where else it did import the same that sanctification doth yet this man could not hence prove that the word Iustification did never signifie another thing seing one and the same word may signify various things in Scripture nor could he hence prove that this was the proper import of the word seing the Apostle is not here defineing the nature of Justification but shewing what a change was made upon them both a real and relative 26. But as a learned grammarian he tels us that the word Iustificare is either derived from the substantive Iustitia or from the adjective Iustus and both these are used to signify truely really not suppositively that vertue of the soul which is expressed by the word Iustitia Yea the adjective Iustus signifieth a man in whom that vertue is for not only is it a great impropriety but a lie to call a man just who is suppositivly and not really such And Iustisico formed from Iustitia signifieth him who is made just seing it is but a composition of the verb Facio and of the adjective Iustus and so Iustifico is Iustum facio I make just and Iustificatus is justus facius made just â—o all which I Ans. 1. If this man would have given us a seasonable taste of his gammatical pulp he should have showne us that the Hebrew and Greek words which are rendered in the latine by Iustifico and Iustificatus have this import that he would prove the latine words to have for whatever he may think with Bellarmine who hath helped him here of the latine vulgar version as it is called we do not account it authentick So that though all that he hath said were true it would prove nothing but that these latine words were not fit enough to expresse the Hebrew and Greek words by 2. But he must know that use is the master of words and that they goe not alwayes by the rules of etymology and he cannot but know that Iustifico and Iustificatus do usually import a judicial or juridical absolution by the sentence of a judge from what was laid to the charge of the impanelled as they do also signify in our owne language When do we say that a man is justified by infused justice Or let him tell me when or in what sentences we use these words when we would signifie thereby infusion of righteousness or making just Let him consider these passages of Scripture see how his sense will agree Exod. 23 7 Deut 25 1 2. 2 Sam. 15 4. 1 King 8 3â— Psal. 82 3. Esai 5 22. 50 8. Luk. 7 29. 10 29.
Renovation is but upon the minde and this Formation of Christ is but a Revelation in the minde But where is the work of grace upon the will This would say that the Papists opinion is more tolerable then this for they include graces seated in the will 5. Where doth the Scripture speak of Justification after this manner We are oft said to be justified by faith but never are we said to be justified by such a Revelation 6. Therefore I may as confidently affirme that this his sensation is but a sensible delusion of Satan the grand enemy of the Grace of God and of the Gospel 34. Yet he goeth about to prove this and tels us first that this methode of salvation is set down by Paul Rom. 5 10. for saith he The Apostle doth signify that reconciliation is made by the death of Christ. Ans. This is true of that Reconciliation which is actual and is had by faith in the death of Christ but not of that Reconciliation which he imagineth whereby to wit God is prone to Receive and Redeem man What next He affirmeth Iustification that is Salvation to be in Christs life Ans. And what ground is there for this Interpretation seing the sense is obvious to wit that seing by the propitiatory death of Christ beleevers laying hold upon him by faith are brought into a state of Peace and Reconciliation with God they need not fear but they shall be brought thorow all difficulties and steps to the enjoyment of life eternal and full salvation Christ being now alive to bestow all that he hath purchased What more He saith That this life of Christ is something inward and spiritual in the heart whereby he is renewed and brought out of death where naturally he lay and raised up and revived unto God the same Apostle sheweth Ephes. 2 5. Ans. This is nothing but a palpable perversion of the words of the Apostle for the life can no more be understood here of some inward thing wrought in man than Christ's death can be so interpreted And if he had so expounded the words he had spoke more like himself above as also more like other Quakers who talk of Christs sufferings and death c. as all done within man 2. That the Apostle Ephes. 2 5. is speaking of beleevers being by grace quickened together with Christ and risen together with him c. is true But what saith this for the corrupt glosse of Rom. 5 10. where the life of Christ is only spoken of and that as it by which beleevers may be assured of their salvation 3. What is there in all this for Justification by the Revelation of Christ within reforming the minde c Hath the man forgote his Conclusion already Ay but sayes he the Apostle mentioneth a Revelation of this inward life 2 Cor. 4 10 11. and this inward life is that whereby he said we were justified Ans. The life of Christ is indeed said by Paul 2. Cor. 4 10 11. to be made manifest in and by its effects supporting carrying the persecuted Apostles through so many miseries and deaths But who except a Quaker could say that the Apostle sayes we are justified by this life And what vestige is there of this in the Apostles words 35. In the next place he citeth Tit. 3 5. And hence thus argueth we are justified by that by which we are saved Ans. Yes by the grace of God we are freely justified and saved and that without works of righteousness which we have done Here the Apostle sayes he moreover doth manifestly ascribe the immediat cause of Iustification unto the inward work of regeneration that is to Christ revealed in the soul by which we are formally accepted of God Ans. 1. What immediat cause is this That a soul must be wrought up to faith in Christ before it can be justified we grant and that this faith must be wrought by the operation of the Spirit is also true But that this faith or any other work of the Spirit in the soul is the Formal Objective Cause of Justification the Apostle saith neither here nor elsewhere 2. To say that we are formally accepted of God that is as fully righteous with a righteousness answering the Law in all points and satisfying justice for bâ—gones as he must meane or he speaketh not to the point by this work of Regeneration is but a jejune begging of what is yet in question sure there is no word of this here 36. In the third place he citeth 2 Cor. 13 5. And saith That it appeareth here how earnestly the Apostle would that they should know Christ in them Ans. The Apostle to the end that the Corinthians who at the instigation of false Teachers were beginning to have undervalueing thoughts of him might be convinced that he was an Apostle of Christ and so continue in esteeming of him as such doth here presse them to goe in to their owne hearts and see if there were any fruits and effects of Christ's living among them by his Spirit through his ministrie that if not they might not account themselves Christians but persons rejected And what would this say It appeareth hence 2. sayes he that the cause of reprobation or of non-non-justification was the want of the inhabitation of Christ revealed And by the rule of contraries where Christ is inwardly known and revealed there the persons are approven and justified And nothing can be more cleare Ans. 1. By what rule law or authority doth he make Reprobation and No-Jusâ—ification equipollent terms This must be licentiâ Quakerorum whereby they have a privilege contrare to Scripture and all Reason to coine words phrases and opinions in divinity at their pleasure 2. The want of the effects and evidences of Christ dwellâ—ng in them by his Spirit is not here given as the cause of their being in an evil state reâ—ected and disapproved of God but as a mark and evidence And marks and evidences are not alwayes taken from the Immediat Nearest and Formal cause 3. It is very true that by the rule of contraries where Christ is indeed revealed and working in the soul that soul is justified but it is most false that therefore Christ revealed in the soul is the Formal Cause or to speak more properly the Formal Objective Reason of Justification for himself said above that good works were properly the effects and fruits of â—ustification and yet he knoweth the fruits and effects may be an evidence of the cause in being 4. And so there is nothing more plaine and evident then that this citation is impertinent and his argueing therefrom a non sequitur and that he is still the old man a Quaker-disputant 37. As a parallel place he citeth Pag. 142 Gal. 4 19. And saith this Christ is the inward hope of glory Col. 1 27 28. And what is the hope of Glory must be that to which we nextly and immediatly lean unto in Iustification Answ. And how is this proven We must beleeve it
satisfie for sins 296 5. Christ with them procureth remission in procuring grace whereby Christ is formed within 308 24. Of Iustification 1. They confound Justification with Sanctification 295 2. And say that we are justified as we are sanctified 295 3. It is ridiculous and worse with them to think to be justified by the imputation of anothers righteousness 295 4. Yea they say such a justification is irrational irreligious ridiculous and dangerous 296 5. It is an abomination to say we are justified by imputation 296 6. Yea they call it a doctrine of Devils an arme of corruption 296 7. By the light within we are justified as well as sanctified say they 297 8. All the reconciliation we have by Christ is that we are made capable of reconciliation 302 303 304 308 9. Sanctification with them is the formal cause of Justification 305 311 10. They say we are justified by the revelation of Christ in the soul 316 11. We are justified by works of grace say they 321 12. What righteousness say they Christ performed without us is not our justification nor are we saved thereby 550 13. They deny all imputation of righteousness 11 25. Of Perfection 1. They say works done by grace are perfect 322 323 2. They plead for the perfection of Saints here 325. c. 3. They hold a perfect freedom from all sin 325 4. Sanctification must be perfect because say they it is Christ himself 326 5. Yet they say this perfection may be lost 332 6. And that some may come to that hight of perfection that they cannot sinne any more 332 26. Of Perseverance 1. They assert the Apostasie of the Saints 350. c. 27. Of Infallibility 1. They plead for infallibility to Ministers and to all Christians 378 28. Of the Patriachs 1. They say the Patriarchs had no faith of the Messias to come 289 29. Of the Church 1. They take-in under the Church all who obey the light within howbeit not professours of Christ or of Christianity 361 2. Pagans Turks Jewes though both Ignorant and Superstitious are members of the Church of the saved with them if they be good single hearted men 361 3. All members of their Churches teach 362 4. Such as are ignorant of the very history of Christ may be members of the Catholick Church that is of the Church of the saved 362 5. Yet members of particular Christian Churches must give assent and credite to truths delivered in the Scriptures 362 6. Outward profession is necessary to make one a member of a particular congregated Church though not of the Catholick Church 364 7. They deny men to be Christians by birth 364 8. They say none can be a member of the Church without grace 379 9. They make the Church or Fold the same with the Shepherd 545 10. With them all Members are Officers 10 30. Of Ministers 1. They say the light received prepareth constituteth and fournisheth a Minister 365 370 2. Ministers must be called by the Spirit and know that they are led and moved by the Spirit and be sensible of the work of the Spirit and of his inward call 372 3. The power and life of the Spirit is the most necessary qualification of a Minister 378 4. Ministers must have no learning but what is taught by the Spirit 283 384 386 5. They would have Ministers learning trades whereby to live 396 6. They will not have Ministers make use of what they have learned or read in their sermons 438 7. They will not have Ministers studying their sermons 431 441 8. They account all such Ministers of the world and of the letter who are for the ordinances of Christ 545 31. Of the Ministrie 1. They say all things concerning the Ministrie are in confusion in the Christian Church 366 2. They are against the Ministerial Office 387 389 3. They deny the distinct offices and officers in the Apostles dayes 388 389 391 4. They account all the Offices Officers Foâ—mes Shadowes 388 5. And to be the work of Anti-Christ the mystery of iniquity 389 6. They make the work of the Ministrie common to all 390 7. They make it free to all to preach in publick when moved by the Spirit 393 8. They deny there was any such Officers as Euangelists 393 394 9. They say Apostles Prophets c. were but distinct names 394 10. They allow women to preach publickly in the Churches 397 32. Of Ordination 33. They deny Ordination and Imposition of hands 377 33. Of Ordinances 1. They deny all external institutions in Worshipe 381 2. They do not acknowledge a precept for an ordinance where there is an Institution 491 3. They are against all ordinances calling them formes 545 4. They deny that ever God did or will reveal himself by them 545 5. They say Christ blotted them out and they must not be touched 545 6. To seek Christ in ordinances is to seek the living among the dead 545 546 34. Of the Sabbath 1. They deny the Lord's day to be the Christian Sabbath 412 2. They hold all dayes alike 412 35. Of Worship 1. They say all Worshipe must be done by inward Inspirations as to time place duration 411 2. They condemne our having a Preacher to preach in our solemne Worshipe 412 3. External actions in Worshipe need particular influences or enthusiasmes 461 4. When we move say they without the Spirit it is the uncleane part which offereth to God which he will not accept 545 36. Of the Quakers Worshipe 1. They have no preparation to their Worshipe 412 413 2. Nor do they beginne with prayer 413 3. Nor do they make any use of the Scriptures in their Worshipe 413 5. In their Worshipe they unchristian and un-man themselves 414 6. They talk of God's power transmitted from Vessel to Vessel whereby when one is affected all are affected 415 7. They lay aside all words even Scripture words in their Worshipe 415 8. Then they must Introvert unto the inward principle within them as unto the most excellent Doctor 415 9. This doctor teacheth them to cease from their own words and actions to feel the inward seed of life thereby be moved to pray preach or sing 416 10. And hence cometh a floud of refreshment that runneth over the whole company 416 11. And then they need neither Baptisme nor the Lords Supper 417 12. If one present be not introverted if the power be a little raised in the assembly he is presently laid hold on and this power warmeth him as fire warmeth a man 417 13. If any present wander in their imaginations one in whom the life is raised will feel a travelling womans paines for them and they will be pricked secretly though nothing be spoken 417 14. Yea if a stranger come to gaze mock he is so terrified at the sight that if his day of visitation be not past he becometh a convert 418 15. In the first place they must of necessity be silent
and have â—othing of it Imputed unto them which though this man may account no way absurd yet all Orthoeox Christians will be of another minde 5 He speaks dubiously concerning the Import of these two words and knoweth not whether their meaning be by which occasion or in which death and we have seen that the meaning cannot be by which Occasion And it will further appear from this that Adams sin could be no Occasion to such as never heard of it and our nearest Parents sins should be a greater Occasion and further what could Paul's meâ—tioning an Occasion contribute to his designe 6. Paul asserts that death passed upon all men and giveth this as a ground thereof that all men had sinned but this Man perverteth the Apostles words and meaning and maketâ— the Apostle speak thus death passed upon all men because all men will sin actually when they become capable 7. The Apostle sheweth that death passed upon all men and reigned even over Infants and so supposeth that Infants had sinned otherwayes his argument vers 12. had been of no value for the Instance of Infants who are a great part of Mankinde had destroyed the Apostles reasoning if they bad not been included under all men 8. He is angry at the Orthodox as we sâ—all hear afterward for restricting the particle all or the words all men though it be according to the exigence of the context But here he excludeth a great part of Mankinde contrary to the whole scope and disigne of the Text yea and to the Apostles expresse including of Infants and making use of their Case as a confirmation of his point 9 If he exclude Infants from this sin he must exclude them also from all benefite in Christs Obedience and then where is his Universal Redemption and his Universal Grace whereof he speaketh in the following Theses 10 That Infants are capable of sinning in their Head is as clear as they are capable of dying for the sin of the Head this the Apostle proveth from their death and from death reigneing over them 11. But sayes he Infants are under no Law But the Apostâ—e sayes the contrare viz. that there was both Sin and Law before Moses dayes because death reigned even over Infants and consequently that Infants were under sin and therefore also under a Law for where there is no law there is no transgressiâ—n But this was the Law given to Adam as head of Mankinde which Law all transgressed when Adam transgressed because the whole Nature transgressed it Adam representing all as their Natural Root and by vertue of the Covenant in which he stood And thus we see how this Man perverteth and inverteth the Words and Arguments and Scope and All of the Apostle 12 If death was inflicted on old Persons because of their actual sins wherefore was death inflicted upon Infants Sure the Apostle maketh no distinction of Deaths nor doth he speak of distinct causes of Death but only mentioneth an universal Cause of an universal Effect sin the cause and death the effect and therefore if the effect come upon infants the cause must also come upon them or the Apostle argueth very loosly and he must impute cruelty injustice to his Maker 13. This addition of his to the text viz. who were capable of sinning is the same that Castalio made saying these to wit who in regaird of age could have sinned And in this he was no lesse bold with the text then our Quaker is for as we have seen and the text is clear it is not all these only that die but even such as come not to that age and the Apostle alwayes speaks of death as the wages of sin And when he here sayeth of Infants that they sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression he clearly intimateth that they sinned some other way viz. in Adam which also the 19. verse manifestly proveth 20. He taketh notice Next of our argument from Psal. 51 5. behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me where the Psalmist is exaggerating his iniquity before the Lord as all true penitents will do traceth his sin to the very Spring and Fountaine as to him viz. that Original Corruption which he brought into the world with him and shewing that even while he was a forming and warming as the word importeth in the womb this corruption did adhere to him so that the very masse out of which he was framed was corrupt and what greater proof could we desire of the originaâ—ed part of this Original Sin than is here The Ancient Fathers made use of this passage for the same end as Vossius sheweth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 144.145 And some Jewes such as Aben Ezra Sal. Iarchi expound it of innate Concupiscence Now what saith this Quaker to this He cannot see our Infâ—rence and why so It seemeth to me sayes he that this iniquity and sin is rathâ—r ascribed to the parents than to the Infants for he sayeth in sin did my mother conceive me not my mother conceived me sinning Ans. Is not this a quick observation and worthy of a Quaker But the misery is it quite crosseth Davids designe This man must think that it was a great argument of Davids Sorrow and Repentance to lay iniquity upon his Parents now in all appearance dead but I should look upon this as no argument of a true penitent heart What could his upbraiding of his Father and Mother after this manner contribute to the aggravating of his own sin And that this is David's designe I think this Quaker will not deny if he but look upon the place and read over the Psalm or the first part of it Is not David about the confessing of his owne sin Read the title of the Psalm the preeceeding verse and see Is he not seeking pardon and remission of his own sin Or shall we suppose that he is praying for remission to the dead all Confession of sin to God is in reference to Remission and if David speak here only of his Parents sin he is tacitely seeking Remission If he speak of his Parents sin in begetting and warming him in the womb it must be as including himself at least as shareing thereof and this will prove that David had sin upon him from his very conception And by his answere he would seem to make marriage duties unlawful contrare to 1 Cor. 7 2 3 4 5. Heb. 13 4. He addeth another answere thus Such an interpretation would contradict the Scriptures formerly cited while it maketh infants to he hurt by their immediat parents sin And there is no mention here of Adam Answ. I do not prove hence that David was guilty of his immediat Parents sins but that original contagion doth so cleave to every ordinary Infant unless we could suppose some singular thing in David without all ground that in his very warming in his Mothers womb he is corrupted and albeit David make no mention here of Adam the
thing which we inferre is manifest viz. the originated sin or the corruption of nature which here David calleth Sin And if this Quaker think that this came from another Original than from Adam let him tell us what it is and not joyn in with the Manichees nor make God the Author and cause of sin if he can 21. Another of our Arguments is from that word of Paul's the wages of sin is death And seing infants die they must have sin as a procuring cause That death was and is a Punishment of sin we cleared above and the Apostle asserteth it here so manifestly calling it the Wages and due Desert that it must argue wonderful impudence in any to question it What sayeth this Quaker He granteth that death is a Consequence of the fall but denyeth that hence we can necessarily inferre iniquity to be in all those that are subject to death That is in plaine termes but the mans modesty dar not speak it out to say the Apostle speaketh not truth who ever imagined that wages were no more but a Consequent of the workmans labour If Death be the Wages and Reward and just Punishment of sin it can certanely be inflicted by the Righteous Judge of the world upon none but such as are guilty of sin How oft doth the Apostle speak of death as the just Desert and Punishment of sin Rom. 5 12 death entred by sin death passed on all for all had sinned suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not signifie in whom as it doth Marc. 2 vers 4. Luk. 5 vers 25.2 Cor. 5 vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being several times put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 9 10 15 1â— but did only import the Cause as Socinians would have it it would sufficiently confirme this that death is inflicted because of sin so vers 15. through the offence of one many be dead and this is called vers 16. judgmnt to condemnation and vers 17. by one mans offence or by one offence death reigned And vers 21. sin reigned unto death And then againe Chap. 6 23. for the wages of sin is death So likewise 1 Cor. 15 21.22 by man came death for as in Adam all die He addeth as a reason of his denyal that it might appear he did not contradict the Apostle without reason For sath he all the outward creation suffered detriment and ruine in some respect by Adam's fall and yet the herbes and trees c. are not therefore sinners Ans. Is not this a valide reason wherefore to reject death as a punishment of sin Nay seing the vanity under which the world groaneth because of sin is a punishment to all Mankinde to Infants as well as to Adult persons it is hence manifest that all are guilty of sin that is all mankinde who are capable of sin as trees and herbes are not But yet more he addeth to Confront the Apostle and sayeth death is no wages of sin to the saints but is gaine Phil. 1 v. 21. Answ. Why is death called an enemy and the last enemy 1 Cor. 15 v. 26. wâ—at meaneth that that when corruptible hath put on incorruption and mortal hath put on immortality death shall be swallowed up in victory 1 Cor. 15 vers 54. Because the Lord by grace through Jesus Christ hath taken the sting of death away and made it a passage to glory unto his owne shall we therefore look upon it in it self as no punishment of sin or as not coming into the world because of sin This will tend as much to prove that Adult persons are not sinful as that Infants have no sin and that a womans paines in child birth or a Mans purchaseing his bread with the sweat of his face c. are no punishments of sin Original or Actual because all these Paines Troubles Afflictions c. worke together for good to such as love God Rom. 8 vers 28. And so the Godly have no Punishments Chastisements Visitations Corrections or the like for sin though the Scripture say so in hundereds of places Here this Quaker joineth with Antinomians 22. He mentioneth another argument which as he thinketh fools only make use of which is this If Infants have no sin they must all be saved Well what replyeth he to this argument We will rather saith he admit this supposed absurdity as a Consequent of our doctrine then say that innumerable Infants perish eternally not for their owne but only for Adams fault But though he should not value such Absurdities notwithstanding he therein run wilder than Papists and joine with Anabaptists and some Pelagians Yet me thinks he should take heed of contradicting his owne doctrine for afterward we will heare of his pleading for Christs dying for all Mankinde And sure if that be true he must say that he died also for Infants and yet here he granteth that they will be all saved without Christ for they have no sin they have no need of a Saviour to save them from their sinnes But how can they be all saved seing they have the Seed of sin â—n them and the Spring of all actual sinnes and that seed of sin which in Scripture is called death and the body of death the old man and the old Adam as he himself speaketh Pag. 62 When Paul speaketh of the body of death Rom. 7 24. he looks upon it as that from which Christ must deliver him How will this Quaker reconcile these things The old man must be put off or we cannot enter into glory and if Infants have the old man how can they enter into glory And beside All in glory must sing the song of the Redeemed and praise him that hath redeemed them by his blood Revel 5 9 10. How can Infants do this who have never been washen from their sinnes in the blood of the lamb as never having had sin And Pag. 55. he told us that none of Adam's posterity had any good in them which he had not from whom they descended Adam then being deprived of his Original Righteousness none of his Posterity no not Infants can lay claim to that Righteousness how I pray can Infants go to heaven who want a righteousness The heaven then which they go to must be a heaven wherein dwelleth no Righteousness and what can this be but some new Limbus But to be more plaine with him It is not enough for him to say he may grant such a Consequence from his doctrine for we must have sure Scripture grounds ere we beleeve that all Infants even of Turks and Heathens shall certanely go to heaven The Scripture giveth more ground of hope of those that are within the Covenant I am sure than of those who are without what thinks he of the Infants of Sodom See Iud. vers 7. and of Coreh and his company not to mention the Infants of the old world And why doth the Scripture call the children of such as are without the church 1 Cor. 7 14. unclean
upon what designe himself best knoweth Nor doth he speak any thing of Election that we might thereby understand his meaning better concerning Reprobation It is true Pag. 59. as we took notice in the proceeding chapter he gave us a little taste of his humore in giving a wipe without any true ground or real occasion at absolute Election and so we see that he is equally enraged against Absolute Election and Absolute Reprobation But what his owne true Opinion is he leaveth us to conjecture Some might think that he were of one opinion as to this with Pelagians Iesuites and Arminians who plead for Conditional decrees of Election and Reprobation and for satisfaction to their owne searching minde poreing into this matter The Iesuites do coine a Scientia Media through which as a necessary pair of spectacles they consider God looking a far to read what is written on the will of man placed in such and such circumstances that accordingly he may order his unchangeable decrees either to Elect this man who as he foreseeth through this prospect of Scientia Media will be a good and holy man and continue in faith and obedience to the end or to Reprobate that other man who as he espyeth by the same medium will prove a son of belial and will not beleeve nor repent If this man be of this opinion I am far mistaken if his Election and Reprobation howbeit he call it Conditional be not more fatally Inevitable than what we say for by this opinion the Lord Jehovah himself is under a Fatal necessity of Electing those that are elected and Reprobating such as are reprobated for according as he seeth the determination of mans will which he cannot alter matters standing in the supposed circumstances so must He passe his decrees But others may think that he rather imbraceth the Opinion of the Socinians and Arminians homologate as to several particulars with them who deny all Eternal Decrees whether of Election or Reprobation as concerning particular individual persons granting only one general decree which they call Predestination whereby the Lord decreed to Elect in time all that should be found in time to be Beleevers and Obedient and Consequently to Reprobate and reject the rest and this Election and Reprobation only in time they ascribe unto God because they rob Him of all Fore knowledge and they make it twofold one Infirme Conditional and Imperfect which may alter as men change their manners so that a Reprobat to day may be an Elect tomorrow and an Elect today a Reprobat the next day another Firme Fixed Peremptory and Absolute when the man hath finished his course and ended his dayes In all which the Arminians agree with them except in this one thing that the Arminians grant an eternal Election of Individual Persons upon the foresight of Faith and Obedience which the other grant not Hence the greatest of my difficulty will flow from my ignorance of this mans true principles for I shall not know how to vindicate truth which we maintaine so as to convince him and stop his mouth upon his owne grounds as otherwayes I should not doubt through the assistance of his Spirit and Grace whose cause I plead to do 5. As concerning this matter enough hath been said by the Orthodox against Pelagians Semipelagians Socinians and Arminians and this man confesseth he hath brought no new accusation against our doctrine but he hath only scraped together as it would seem what he could get out of the dunghill of Iesuites and Arminians And therefore we might dismiss him by referring him to such as have written copiously and very far above his reach on this subject even to some papists such as the Dominicans Alvares Estius Rispolis Cajetanus Sixtus Senensis and to others more ancient such as Aegidius Romanus Gregorius Ariminensiâ— and others cited by Estius yet lest he should boast we shalâ— view what he hath said without enlarging much upon the matter And as to our doctrine the Reader may satisfy himself with what is Succinctly Solidly Plainly and Satisfying set down in our Confession of faith cap. 3. sect 3 4. 7. and for clâ—aring of the whole matter he may read the whole Chapter and there finde much in little bounds For facilitating of our way in the fâ—llowing examination I shall only propose a few things here in the entry for understanding the truâ—h about Reprobation without speaking to Election particularly 6. And 1. No man can denâ— a Reprobation but he must withall deny an Election for Election being a choosing of some cannot but import a leaving of others And I suppose this Quaker will grant this unless he be of the opinion of Hilberus who asserted that all men were Elected in Christ to salvation whether they beleeved or not not only contrary to the native proper import of the word Election which is a choosing separating of some from others but to plaine Scripture Mat. 20 16. 24 24. Ioh. 10 26. 1 Cor. 1 26. Rom. 9 22 23. many other places 2. Seing then the Scripture is so full in proving of Election we must assert that there is also a Reprobation and beside the Scripture pointeth forth the matter to us Mal. 1 2. Rom. 9 13.22 1 Pet. 2 8. Iud ver 4. Mat. 25 41. Prov. 16 4. 3. When we speak of Reprobation as opposed to Election as comprehended under Predestination as a species or part we consider either the Act of God Reprobating or the thing Decreed Purposed by the act of Reprobation that is as the Schoolmen speak vel quoad reprobantis actum vel quoad reprobationis terminum When we consider the Act of God reprobating nothing in man can be any moving cause thereof nay it is impossible it should be so for as Aquinas 1. p. quaeâ—t 23. art 5. saith there can be no cause of the will of God a touching the act of willing and the reason is manifest because that act of God's will as all immanent acts of God are is Eternal now man all that is in man is of yesterday could not cause an eternal act yea that act of God's will is God himself unlesse we blasphemously say with Socinians that the decrees of God are accidents in God so destroy his Simplicity and therefore we can no more imagine a cause in man of the act of Reprobation than we can imagine that there is something in man which is a cause of God himself which were absurd blasphemy The will of God hath no cause no antecedent is dependant on limited determined by nothing in man or any creature The learned Doct. Twisse hath this argument further If saith he sin be the cause of Reprobation it is either so of its owne Nature or by the Ordinance of God Not the first as all will confess Not the second for then God should ordaine that upon the foresight of sin he would ordaine man to damnation thus an Eternal Ordination should
Adversaries the Impetration might have been obtained and yet no Application made of the good things impetrated and obtained 3. If no Application was intended by the Father or by Christ then it must be said that both were uncertain as to what the Event should have been or at least Regardless and Unconcerned either of which to affirme were blasphemy 4. The very word Impetrate having the same force and import with Purchase Procure Obtaine Merite and the like doth say that such for whom this Impetration was made have a right upon the Impetration to the thing Acquired and Purchased And if they have a right thereto that Possession should follow 5. Yea the word importeth the actual conferring of the good to be the very end of the Purchaseing and Impetrating and so in this case the very Impetration is ground of Assurance of the Application considering who did impetrate and at whose hands and withall what was the ground of the Fathers sending of Christ and of Christs coming to impetrate even inconceiveably wonderful and great Love Nor doth the intervening of a condition required before the actual collation of some of the good things purchased hinder at all for all these Blessings some whereof are as a condition to others are the one good thing Impetrated and the very conditions are also Impetrated as we declared above and so this pointeth forth only the methode of the actual bestowing of these good things purchased 6. How absurd is it to say a thing is Impetrated or Obtained and yet may or may not be Bestowed may be Possessed or not Possessed Or to say that such a good thing is Obtained by price or petitioning and yet the same good tâ—ing may never be Bestowed or the Bestowing of it hangeth and dependeth upon an Uncertain Condition which may never be performed 7. How unreasonable is it that such should have right to the Merites that have no right to the thing Merited Doth not an interest in the Merites procureing any thing include an interest in the thing Merited When a ransome is payed for captives to the end they may be delivered have not these Captives a right to the deliverance upon the payment of that ransome 8. The Scriptures do so connect these two that it argueth contempt thereof to imagine such a separation as Rom. 4 25. Yea the one is assigned as a certain Effect and Consequent flowing from the Other as its Moral cause Esai 53 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many this Justification is the Application whence cometh it For he shall bear their iniquities there is the Impetration giâ—en as the ground hereof So further vers 5. he was wounded for our transgressions c. and what followeth upon this Impetration And by his stripes are we hâ—aled So Râ—m 5 vers 18. By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification So that the Application reacheth an all that is all who have interest in the righteousness whicâ— is the thing Impetrated see also Heb. 10 10. 9. If Christs Intercession be for the same persons for whom he Died tâ—en the Application is to the same for this Intercession of Christ is in order to tâ—e Application But that Christs Intercession is for the same persons for whom hâ— died we shall see hereafter 10. If all things be ensured to such for whom Christ died then certanely this Application cannot faâ—l but the former is true Rom. 8 32. He that spared not his owne Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not mark this manner of expressâ—on which importeth the greatâ—st of absurdities to think otherwise with him also freely give us all things 11. And in that same place vers 33 34. Christs death is given as the certain ground of Justification and Salvation so that such as he died for shall certanely in due time and after the methode prescribed be Justified and Saved otherwayes there were no sure ground in the Apostles argueing for if all the ground of this certanty as to Application were from their Faith or fulfilling of the Condition the Apostle would have mentioned this as the maine ground and not have led them to a ground common to others who never should partake of the Application 12. This matter is abundantly confirmed from what we said above concerning Christs purchasing of Faith and dying for our sanctification and to bring us to God c. so that more needeth not be added hâ—re 31. 20. For further confirmation of this and because our Adversaries think to salve the forementioned separation of Impetration and Application by telling us that where good things are Absolutely purchased then Application must follow But not where good things are purchased only Conditionally as in our case we shall therefore shew how this will not hold nor advantage their cause for 1. If all be Redeemed Conditionally that condition whatever it be must in equity be revealed to all I know this Quaker will grant this and say that it is revealed to all persons come to age but how this is and what he understandeth hereby we shall afterward have occasion to enquire However others are put to sory shifts here 2. Either God and Christ knew who would performe this condition or not If not then they were not omniscient If they did know then sure this death was more particularly and designedly intended for them than for the rest and upon what account and to what end should Christ lay down his life a ransome for such as he knew certainly should never be the better thereof And why would the Father send him to die for such 3. This Condition is either in mans sole power without the help of the grace of God to performe or not If it be in mans power from what Scripture shall this Pelagianisme be confirmed How shall then the new Covenant of grace be distinguished in specie from the Covenant of Works made with Adam If tâ—is Condition be not in mans power but the grace of God must work it Then either God will work it in all or not If not why would God purchase good things to people upon a Condition which they could not performe and which he alone could work in them and resolved not to worke in them If he will worke it in all then all shall certainly be saved Againe if this Condition be the free gift of God then either God will give it Absolutely to all and so all shall certainly be saved or Absolutely to some and then none but they shall be saved and why should Christ die for the rest Or Conditionally to all And if so the doubt will recurre concerning that Condition which either must be Absolutely given and so we are where we were or Conditionally and so still the doubt recurreth 4. This condition is either purchased by Christ or it is not If not then we owe no thanks to Christ for it nor for what is obtained upon that condition more then
3 5 6. any way confirme his fancy but rather establish the contrary truth to wit that all the favours which God conferreth upon us in order to salvation are of free grace and not by works of righteousness or works which are done in righteousness and righteously as the words in the original bear which we have done Grace and Mercy here are set in opposition to all our works yea to our best works and therefore if Iustification be an act of God's grace as the Scripture saith it is it is not nor can it be because or upon the account of our works of righteousness And if in and through or by Iustification there is pardon of iniquity as there is Rom. 4 5 6 7. And if pardon of iniquity be a merciful and gracious act in God being an act of his free grace and mercy Ephes. 1 vers 7 8. it is manifest that Iustification is not upon thâ— account of our works Therâ—fore we are said to be Iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ Rom. 3 24. Moreover the judgment of God is alwayes as in condemning of sinners so in justifying of beleevers according to truth Rom. 2 2. And in the matter of justifying of the ungodly the righteousness of God is declared and it is all so contrived that he might be just and the justifier of him which beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3 25 26. Therefore cannot Iustification passe upon the account of any thing framed and done in us or by us because that is not nor can it be that which will passe for a Righteousness in the eyes of God and a Righteousness answerable to the Law in all points it being when it is at its best but imperfect nor can it have any merite or deserving in it to compensat for former transgressions being alwayes that only which we are obliged unto so that when we have done all we must say that we are but unprofitable servants Luk. 17 vers 10. we have done but what was our duty to do 7. Having thus briefly dispatched his Thesis wherein we see his opposition to Iustification by and upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed and therein his harmony and agreement with Papists Socinians and Arminians we come now to consider what he sayes more largly in his Apology Pag. 122. c. In the beginning he tels us that the handling of this doth well follow his treating of universal Redemption and universal grace And I shall not quarrel with his Method were his doctrine orthodox but seing few who plead for the universality of the death of Christ and who contend for the universality of grace are found sound and orthodox in the point of Iustification we mighâ—â—pon this ground though we had gote no taste of his judgment in the Thesis suspect his doctrine of Iustification But after tryal we will be better able to judge He saith truely that there are many controversies moved already about this point and the more blame worthy is he who doth not diminish but increase these rather as to some things though in the principal he liketh the Popish way better than ours He promiseth first to state the controversie so far as concerneth them and to explaine their judgment and then he saith he will confirme it by Scripture testimony and the certain experience of all that are really justified we must see how he performeth what is promised 8. What he saith § 2. of the Papists depraving of this truth we heare but are ready to suppose that howbeit he do not with them stand up for the merite ex condigno as it is called and yet many Papists reject this and are satisfied with meritum ex congruo in the mater of Iustification and some reject both as may be seen in Stapleton Prol. ad lib. 5. de justific of good works nor approve of the vulgar Papists placeing their Justification in things that are neither good nor evil or in things that are rather evil as good as he thinketh to be evident from their doctrine of the Sacraments and Indulgences c. but commend our Reformers for opposeing these Abominations Yet as to the maine controversie handled betwixt our Reformers and the Papists viz. what is Iustification and what is the formal reason Objective or the formal cause as some speak or Material cause as others speak or that because and upon the account of which men are Justified in the sight of God this Quaker joyneth with the Papists The Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Chap. 7. tels us That Iustification is not only remission of sins but also Sanctification and renovation of the inner man by a voluntary susception of grace and gifts whereby man of unjust becometh just of an enemy becometh a friend that he may be an heire according to the hope of eternal life Why doth our Quaker embrance this upon the matter and give a worse Justification even a Justification wherein there is no mention made of remission of sinnes Why doth he with this Synagogue of Satan confound Justifiâ—ation and Sanctification He knoweth how Bellarmine de Iustif. lib. 2. Cap. 2. briefly stateth the question betwixt us and them in these words Whether the formal cause of absolute Iustification be a righteousness inherent in us or not If this Quaker be no Papist why doth he conspire with them in this cardinal point of difference Why doth he and the rest rise up so much against the Imputed righteousness as do the Papist following the Councel of Trent as we see Pag. 125. he doth shewing his teeth against our Confession of faith And there also I cannot but take notice of a base falshood and deceit when he would make his Readers beleeve that the Papists do not place Justification in any real inward renovation of soul more then the Protestants while as we have seen the contrary out of the Councel of Trent and Bellarm. and multitudes moe might be cited But what needs more when we have the words of that Councel which all Papists must stand to and in that forecited Chapt. the same Councel saith The only formal cause is the righteousness of God not that by which he himself is righteous but whereby he maketh us righteous to wit by which we are renewed in the Spirit of our minde and are not only repute but truely are called and are righteous or just It is true that they say that this grace and charity that is infused in Iustification is through the merite of the most holy suffering of Christ And in this they are more orthodox and less Socinian than are the Quakers to this Mans shame be it spoken Yet still they make Justification to consist in the Infusion of grace and Renovation of the soul. 9. He beginneth his explication of their judgment Pag. 126. § 3. And telleth us first That as it appeareth from the explication of the former thesis they renunce all natural power in themselves for delivering of themselves out
is in Christ which is able to overcome and eradicat the evil seed Ans. 1. The Redemption made by Christ on the crosse and by his obedience and sufferings we cheerfully acknowledge But that it was a Redemption made for allâ— we abundantly disproved above Chap. VIII 2. That there was any such Power Grace or Vertue of the Spirit of life purchased hereby and granted to all is false and abundantly above disproved likewise See Chap. X. 3. To imagine that every son of Adam hath power granted to him to subdue and root out natural corruption is but pure Pelagianisme Arminianisme Iesuitisme but not the truth revealed to us in the word of God is to wedge warr against thâ— pure grace of God and the free operations thereof to set the crown of salvation upon the head of the creature all which we made manifest above at several occasions 12. What is the Second Redemption that is inseparable from the other It is that sayes he which Christ worketh in us And what is that It is that sayes he further whereby we possesse and know that that pure and perfect redemption is in us purifieing us delivering us from the power of corruption and bringing into favour union and familiarity with God Answ. 1. That the Lord Jesus Redeemeth by Power through his Spirit from sin and corruption all such as he hath Redeemed by Price from Law and justice we willingly grant But how can he say that these two are inseparable seing then they must be of equal extent and so as the first Redemption was in his judgment for all and every man the second must extend to all and every man and so all and every man must be delivered from the power of corruption and consequently must be saved Againe how can he say this who pleadeth afterward for the Apostasie of the Saints But 2. This purifying and delivering from corruption as would appear by his words is not wrought by the second Redemption but only a knowing that that pure and perfect Redemption is in us purifying us c. And so all that is had by this second Redemption is but a sight of what the fruite of the first Redemption is doing So that by the first Redemption not only man hath power to subdue corruption but he actually doth subdue it without any new grace or divine help and by the second Redemption he is only delivered from darkness which hindered his actual perceiving of the operation of the gift and grace bestowed upon the first Redemption 3. whether is this second Redemption necessary unto salvation or not I suppose he will say yes Then what shall become of the childe of God that walketh in darkness hath no light what shall become of them that have true grace and grace uniteing them to Christ to God through Christ yet through darkness the Lord dispensing so partly as a punishment partly for tryal exercise can see and acknowledge no such thing 13. He tels us over againe that by the first Redemption all mankinde was so far reconciled unto God that they were made capable of salvation and had the offer of Gospel peace citeing for this Ephes. 2 15. 1 Ioh. 4 10. Ezech. 16 6. 1 Pet. 2 22 24. 3 18. Tit. 2 14. Phil. 3 10. Ans. 1. we have seen before at several occasions that the Redemption of Christ is a far other thing and hath far other effects even remission of sinnes 2 Cor. 5 19. actual reconciliation grace and glory Dan. 9 24 26. Col. 1 19 20. Ephes. 1 11 14. Ioh. 17 2. Heb. 9 12 13. 2 Cor. 1 20. 2. The very texts cited by himself make against him for Ephes. 2 15. he died to make in himself of twaine one new man so making peace and this was not a mere capacity See vers 13. but now in Christ Iesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Was this only a capacity of coming near or a meer offer of it deluded souls may think so but the words are plaine let him see also Ephes. 1 7. 2 5 6. The next place he citeth is 1 Ioh. 4 10. Where God is said to have sent his son to be a propitiation for our sinnes and sure a Propitiation doth work more then a meer possibility of friendshipe and he was so a Propitiation as that for the same persons he is an Advocat with the Father 1 Ioh. 2 1 2. His next passage is Ezech. 16 6. And doth he think that when God saith to any lying in their bloud live that that creating word giveth nothing but a meer capacity to live See vers 8 9 10 11 12. But this properly is to be understood of Gods dispensation of love to that visible Church as such and so is not very pertinent to the purpose in hand His next passage is 1 Pet. 2 22. he would say 21. 24. And what can be more clear against him seing the Apostle saith vers 24. that he bear our sins for this end that we being dead to sinnes should live unto righteousness and then addeth by whose stripes ye were healed See also Chap. 1 vers 18. Where he saith that we are redeemed from our vaine conversation See also Chap. 1 2 4. He citeth next 1 Pet. 3 18. Where it is expresly said that Christ hath once suffered that he might bring us to God and not put us in a bare capacity Was this mans minde present when he wrote these citations Why did he not cite also Col. 1 vers 14. Gal. 1 vers 4. 3 vers 13 14. 4. vers 5. If he would cite passages against himself As also Revel 5 vers 9 10. 14.3 4. Tit. 2 vers 14 14. He explaineth over againe his Second Redemption and addeth that hereby we are really Iustified That is when we are sanctified we are Justified or Justified by sanctification as say the Tridentine Papists Then he tels us That both the Redemptions are the cause of Iustification the first the procureing cause and the last the formal cause And just so say they as we saw above out of the Councel of Trent and may be seen in Bellarmine who de justifie lib. 1. Cap. 2. proveth that Jesus Christ is the meritorious cause of Justification and is sounder here than I suppose this Quakers is who complyeth more with Samosatenians Socinians against whom Bellarmin there disputeth And the Councel of Trent said that Christ did merite justification to us by his most holy passion on the tree of the crosse Wherein doth this man now differ from Papists the worst of them I mean such as follow the Councel of Trent There are some Others that may shame this Quaker in this point As Contarenus a cardinal who in his Treatis of Iustification cleareth and determineth the question thus Because by faith we attaine to a twofold â—â—ghteousness one inherent whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature thâ— other
the righteousness of Christ given and imputed to us because insert in Christ and we put him on The question is unto which of these we ought to lean and account our selves justified before God And I saith he wholly think that it is piously and christianly said that we ought tâ— leane to I say lean to as to a firme thing which may uphold us the righteousness of Christ gifted to us and not to grace and holiness inherent So also Pighius de fide Iustificatione may shame this Quaker 15. In the fourth place Pag. 128. For clearing of his meaning he tels us that by this Iustification they do not understand simply good works nay not as done by the holy Spirit But did ever man in his wits understand it so The question is whether good works be the formal cause or the formal objective reason of Justification And this he granted above and asserted with the worst of Papists But he saith with protestants that these are rather the effects of Iustification then the cause This is better said but way then said he lately that by the Second Redemption whereby we are Purified Liberated and Redeemed from tâ—e power of corruption we become justified formally or that that second Redemption was the formal cause of our justification And what will he now have to be the formal cause of our justification Christ formed within us this inward birth produceing righteousness and holiness in us with which the Father is well pleased Ans. But this is only an inward Principle of grace and the sanctification which is defined in the Larger Catechisme as we saw above and by this himself afterward tels us we are parkers of the divine nature and this as Contarenus said with truth belongeth to an Inherent Righteousness and so still he holds with the Tridentine Papists who will have us justified by a Righteousness inherent in us and that in opposition to a Righteousness imputed And when afterward he saith that Bellarmine and others disput against this and other Papists understood it not he should have named the place 2. That God is well pleased with this will say nothing for he is well pleased also with good works that flow from this Principle betwixt which two this Quaker would distinguish in this question He addeth This is to possess whole Christ who is the Lord our righteousness Ier 23 6. and to put on Christ. Ans. Yet this is not to put on the righteousness of Christ in Justification and to be cloathed with his Righteousness in appearing before Justice This is not to make the Lord our righteousness as Ier. 23 6. nor to say with Paul Phil 3 9. and be found in him not having minâ— own righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith Further he sayes hereby we are made one with him as branches into the vine and we have right to all things which he did and suffered for us so that his obedience righteousness and death is ours Ans. All this is true by faith uniteing us to Christ. But we are not so properly by Christ formed within us for this is a consequent of and in nature though not in time posteriour to our union to Christ by Faith which is brought about in effectual calling and as a consequent of this union followeth also Justification the formal objective reason of which is not either this union or begun sanâ—tification but the Righteousness of Christ or his Obedience and Suffering made over and imputed to the believer by God Seing in these matters he seemeth to be an utter stranger I would advise him to read our Larger Catechisme better if he think not himself too far advanced to turne a catechumene againe What followeth Pag. 128. is but a specimen of the Quakers Spirit in abusing of Scripture with their sensless allegorick glosses and hath no Interest in this queston and therefore I have nothing to do with it 16. He tels us next that though we be not justified for good works yet we are justified in them and they are necessary as causa sine qua non Ans. That good works are called for from Justified persons we acknowledge but what Interest they have in putting us into a state of Justification we see not His giving them an interest of a causa sine qua non contradicteth what he said before for he would have us Justified by Christ formed within and this is antecedent to good works as the tree is unto the fruit And he also said in the preceeding Pag that good works follow Justification as the effects thereof and how then they can come in as a causa sine qua non he must help us by his next to understand and cleare to us how the Effect can be the causa sine qua non of the Cause But this man must have liberty to contradict himself He must also explaine to us what that is to be justified in good works That a man may be in a justified state while doâ—ng good works we understand very well but how otherwayes he can be justified in good works I see not unlesse by Justification he mean not a justification as to state but a justification as to particular actions which is impertinent 17. In the last place he saith that if he and his fraternity held the same opinion about good works that Protestants hold they would easily confess that they were not only not necâ—ssary but that they were noxious Though Protestants assert the necessity of good works in justified persons come to age they assert notwithstanding their noxiousness in Justification that is if they be considered as any part of that Righteousness upon consideration whereof the person is declared just Justified before God or as any part of the formal Objective reason of Justification or as others speak as any part of the formal cause of Justification But what is his ground for they affirme saith he that the best works of saints are corrupted and defiled It is true we say indeed that our best works are not perfect but have ad mixture of dross and of much imperfection but that is not all the cause why we deny such an interest to works in Justification as Papists and he plead for but this Interest we deny to works mainly because it would spoile Christ of the glory of our Justification and of being our Righteousness that is due to him and give man ground of boasting which by Gospel Justification is wholly excluded But do not Quakers say the same of good works we judge saith he the best works done by man intending conformity unto the Law in his owne strength natural power and proper will to be such that is polluted But protestants do not account these properly good works but only materially such as not flowing from a principle of grace and from the Spirit of sanctification What doth he say of these These are pure and
holy sayes he as is the root they come from and therefore God accepts them and justifieth us in them and rewardeth us for them of his proper and free grace But the question is whether they be perfect and can stand before the tribunal of Justice and so become any part of that Righteousness answering the Law which requireth perfect conformity in all points which is the formal objective reason of our Justification before God whose judgment is according to truth 18. Thus we have seen his explication of their Opinion which in short is this That the formal objective reason or as he with others speak the formal cause of Justification is a Principle of grace within or Christ formed there that is the spring and principle of good works which is begun sanctification This I say is it according to his words but if we â—emember what was said to this above and consider what this Christ within is according to the Quakers principles we shall finde that in this point their judgment is more dâ—testable than is that of Papists for this Christ within is formed of meer Nature and that without any assistance of divine grace by the meer Rational power and will of man yeelding unto the dictats of that Light which is as well in pagans that scarce have the use of reason as in Christians and in all alike and so it is a Christ formed within whereof Pagans Turks and Indians that never heard nor never shall heare the least sound of the Gospel are capable and by vertue whereof they as well as Christians can come to be justified So that in short the justification which Quakers maintaine is a Pagan-justification resulting from a Pagan-sanctification and if this be not many degrees more damnable abominable then the doctrine of Tridentine Papists let any of understanding judge 19. After this he layeth downe three Propositions the confirmation of which will as he thinketh prove his point The first is this Pag. 129. The Obedience and Passion of Christ is that whereby the soul obtaineth remission of sins in that it is the cause prâ—curing that grace and seed by whose inward operations Christ is formed within and the soul is made conforme unto it and so just and justified And in respect of this capacity and offer of gracâ— God is said to be reconciled not that he is actually râ—conciled or justifieth any or holdeth any justified who remaineth in his sins ungodly impure and unjust Ans. 1. To say that the obedience and suffering of Christ procureth remission of sins in that it procureth that grace and seed c. is but a Socinian and Arminian untruth destroying the Satisfaction of Christ and upon the mater saying that Christ by his Obedience and Death did not fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified did not make a Proper Real and Full Satisfaction to justice in their behalf contrare to Rom. 5 8 9 10 19. 1 Tim. 2 5 6. Heb. 10 10 14. Dan. 9 24 25. Esai 53 4 5 6 10 11 12. Nor doth the Scripture speak so of the mater see Ephes. 1 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins So Col. 1 14. See also Col. 2 13. Ephes. 4 32 Mat. 9 2 5. Mark 2 59. Luk. 5 20 23. 7 48. Mat. 26 28. Heb. 9 22. It is true the methode of the Gospel requireth that the Persons be first united to Christ by faith before they can obtaine these benefites of his Redemption but this is not the thing he speaketh of 2. This grace and seed is with him common to all flesh But the Scriptures tell us not as we have showne above that Christ's righteousness was for all or that all receive grace by vertue thereof 3. Christ formed within by the inward operations of that grace and seed which is common to Pagans is but a Natural Christ and Birth for such as the cause is such must the effect be And so what followeth upon this is but a Pagan righteousness and Justification 4. It is false as we have already manifested that God is said to be Reconciled only in respect of this capacity and offer of grace 5. We say not that God justifieth any remaining in their sinnes yet we grant that the Justified may commit sinnes and thereby fall under God's fatherly displeasure Psal. 89 31 32 33. 51 7 8 9.10 11 12. 32 5. 1 Cor. 11 30 32. Luk. 1 20. Mat. 26 75. and yet withall remaine in the state of Justification Luk. 22 32. Heb. 10 24. for we approve not of Antinomians in this mater 20. The Proposition we have heard and what he would properly assert thereby we are yet to learne Possibly his proofs will help us to understand it The first proof Pag. 130. us from Rom. 3 25. Here sayes he the Apostle showeth the efficacy of Christâ—s death viz. that by it and faith in it remission of by past sinnes is obtained And what then This is it in which and for which the long suffering of God is exercised toward men And what then Therefore though men by their dayly sinnes deserve eternal death yet by vertue of the sacrifice of Christ grace and the seed of God move them in love dureing the day of their visitation that they may be redeemed from evil Here are Quakers dreames whereof the text maketh no mention and dreames that have no sense but with men of distracted braines 21. We are nothing the wiser by this proof let us see the next If God saith he should be totally reconciled unto men and repute them just while they were actually unjust why doth he so oft complean of his people as Esai 59 2. where there is perfect and compleat reconciliation there is no separation or it will follow that sins can make no separation and that their good works and worst sinnes are the same in Gods account This giveth too great liberty to sin And in the margine he saith he speaketh not here of persons not yet converted whom Antinomians their adversaries say were justified from the beginning but of persons converted according to Protestants who may fall into grievous sinnes and yet are said by them to remaine perfectly and wholly justified Answ. 1. Here beginne we to understand something of his Proposition and of its designe And for answere we say That there is a twofold unrighteousness one of State or of Person another of Condition and particular Actions As to the first no unrighteous person is justified because before Justification he must be cloathed with the imputed righteousness of Christ and so constituted just and in Justification declared just because constituted just And as to the second though such an one as committeth sin be in so far unrighteous as to his actions and in that not justified or approven of God Yet being united to Christ by faith and thereby put in a justified state he remaineth in Gods account a justified person as to his State which
must be when he saith we are not Justified by the Law that we are indeed justified by Inherent Holiness or Conformity to the law What more The meaning of these words we are Iustified by faith sayes he may by we are made just by faith purifieing the heart Ans. Then the Apostles should contradict himself for if we be thus made just by faith we are made just by works and further purifying of the heart cannot otherwise be understood but of renewing the heart but Iustifying signifieth not making just Againe sayes he When we are said to be Iustified by grace by Christ by the Spirit what absurdity to understand this of making just Ans. Of being Justified by the Spirit we read â—ot for these words by the Spirit mentioned 1 Cor. 6 11. are to be referred to washing and sanctification When we are said to be Justified by grace it is by the gracious and free favour of God as our Divines make good against the Papists and that with the circumstances of the places are against such a Justification Nor must we any where so interpret any passage as to make it crosse or contradict other passages When we are said to be Justified by Christ the meaning is clear against his sense 31. He citeth againe 1 Cor. 6 11. not 11 6. and then tels us that Thysius thinketh that Iustification here includeth sanctification as its consequent and that Zanchius in Ephes. 2 4. thinketh it is the same with sanctification And that Bullinger on the place sayes the Apostle in diverse words expresseth the same thing Ans. 1. None of these Divines confound them and make them one as this Quaker doth but distinctly and orthodoxly explaine the nature both of Justiâ—â—cation and Sanctification 2. As I said above though this were granted that the word Iustify should import the same with sanctify in this or that place Yet unlesse he made it manifest that it alwayes so importeth and can never be taken in another sense he could not make good his Assertion and Opinion So that in all this work he is but beating the winde 3. Thysius had no ground to speak so seing sanctiâ—â—cation is as well expressed as Justification but ye are sanctified but ye are justified 4. Bullinger saith no more than what Calvin saith yet Calvin distinguisheth them in his Comment on the place Zanchius saith no such thâ—ng in the place cited 32. In the next place Pag. 138. he citeth with Bellarm. Rom. 8 30. And saith that either Sanctification must be excluded or Iustification must be taken in its proper sense Ans. 1. There is no necessity for either for Sanctification is comprehended under Vocation which is saving and effectual otherwise the linkes of this chaine could be broken for a common and ineffectual call is not attended with Justification and Glorification And effectual Vocation is by infusion of grace and the Spirit of holiness and a real change 2. Sanctification might be comprehended under the word Iustified it being a necessary and inseparable consequent and that without any prejudice to the native usual and constant import of the word Iustified 3. Thereafter vers 33.34 the Apostle cleareth in what sense he took Iuâ—tified when he opposeth it unto condemned a forensical terme and to accused another His citing of some Protestants so saying I passe finding no argument alleiged by them to enforce this acceptation Melanthon's saying that to be Iustified by faith doth not only signify to be pronunced just but to be made just May admit of a saife interpretation for he saith not to be made just by inherent righteousness And it is certain that all that are Justified are first made just not by inherent righteousness but by the Imputed righteousness of Christ. What he citeth out of one Martinus Boraeus I cannot examine having never seen the book Bucer's words cited make nothing for him B. Forbes's words I will not justify but judge that Cardinal Contarenus spoke more orthodoxly then he The Fathers so taking the word sometimes moveth not me more nor it did Calvin Chemnitius and Zanchius cited by himself And further if to justify signifie to make righteous to accuse and to condemne which are opposite terms must signifie to make unrighteous or unjust 33. After this § Pag. 140. he bringeth in his conclusion from what he hath said and it is a bold one Having now sufficiently saith he proved that by Iustification must be understood to be made really just This is concluded like a Quaker with unparalleled falshood impudency and boldness He undertook only to prove that the word might without absurdity be so understood and how weakly he hath done this we have seen But now he wonderfully concludeth a must be from a may be and that too no wayes satisfyingly proved But I have said already that the beleever who is Justified may be said to be really made just but not in his sense nor because of the import of the word as he alleigeth but because the judgment of God is according to truth and God will not justifie an unjust man The Justified person therefore is first made just not by Inherent Holiness and Righteousness but by the Righteousness of Christ Imputed to him and Received by faith What saith he next I do confidently affirme from real and sensible experience but the delusory sensations or impressions of an erroneous Spirit on the mindes of persons given up to strong delusion is no demonstration to us of the verity of what they boldly affirme that the immediat next and formal cause whereby a man is Iustified in the sight of God is the revelation of Christ in the soul who converteth and reneweth the minde and he who is the Author of this work being so formed and revealed we are truely Iustified and accepted in the sight of God Ans. 1. Who seeth not that these things as here expressed are not such as can fall under the inward sensations of the soul Can the soul feel what is the Immediat Nearest or Formal Cause of God's acts What needs more proof of a desperat delusion 2. If the revelation of Jesus Christ be such a cause of Justification Justification cannot be a making just for it is not as he sayes the revelation that converteth and reneweth but Christ revealed and if Christ revealed maketh the change â—ustification doth it not nor can Justification be a declareing of one righteous because of inherent righteousness for here the man is Justified upon the revelation and yet the man is not renewed for he is not renewed by the revelation but by Christ revealed and the Revelation of Christ is before this Operation of Christ. 3. If the man be not justified till Christ be formed in him as his last words seem to say then the revelation of Christ cannot be the Immediat cause of Justification because that is before this forming of Christ in the man for it is before the work of Christ reforming and renewing the minde 4. I see all this
glory though we must alwayes lament our shortcoming and run to the bloud of Iesus that the defilement cleaving to our best works may be purged away Nor do we think that this hyperbolick expression of the penitent church will warrant any to caâ—l all the work of the Spirit of God in his people sordide and filthy rags What is of God should be acknowledged good acceptable though the defilements that adhere to the best of God's works in us here because of our continueing corruption and because of the lustings of the flesh in us should be mourned over and keep us humble One thing I would further note here That if our Gospel-works be such why are we not Justified because of them as well as in them He further answereth pag. 149. § 12 That though it were granted that the best of men are imperfect Yet God can produce perfect works in them by his Spirit Ans. the qustion is not what God can do but what he doth God can make all his perfect Yet the supposition made saith he doth not so He hath thought it fit for his owne glory so to work in his Saints as they may have so long as they are here a body of death to wrestle with and occasion to pray dayly forgive us our sinnes and to run to the fountaine opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Ierusalem for sin and for uncleanness that they may be washen He proceedeth The Spirit of God is not capable of a blot and therefore all Christ's works wrought in his children are pure and perfect Ans. The Spirit it is true is not capable of pollution yet his works as received by us and as we are the formal actors of them are obnoxious to pollution And doth not the Scripture tell us that God first beginneth a good work in us and afterward perfecteth it Phil. 1 6. How can then all the works of Christ in us be perfect And if it were so his children here should be as holy as they will be in heaven for what is higher than perfection Thus we see this man will outstripe Bellarm. who confessed that our actual righteousness was imperfect because of the admixtion of venial faults and stood in need of dayly remission And will run the length of bold Vasques who thinketh that such have no need of remission in 1. 2. Disp. 204. c. 2. 3. He further argueth It would then follow that the miracles and works of the Apostles themselves as the conversion of the Gentiles gathering of Churches writting of Scripture and giving of themselves to the death for Christ were defiled with sin Ans. we must distinguish betwixt these works which were extraordinary I meane as to the manner of their performance and so peculiar to such extraordinary persons in which they were not in a manner formal actors but passive organs such as working of miracles and writting of Scripture in these the Apostles moved as they were immediatly Acted Inspired and Led of the Spirit so that these were not properly their formal acts And these which are of a more ordinary nature wherein they were more formal actors through the assistance of the Spirit whether in works belonging to their office as preaching and gathering of Churches or in works of Christianity as giving themselvs to the death and the like As to the first sort we may grant that they were undefiled as being pure acts of the Spirit wherein the Apostles were but organs used by the Spirit as he saw meet But as to others I see no absurdity to say that they needed to use that petition forgive us our sinnes The Apostle Paul had his infirmities and weakneses a body of death that made him cry out wo is me miserableman and was thereby made to do what he would not and hindered from doing what he would Rom. 7 The Apostle Iames saith in many things we offend all Iam. 3 2. and the Apostle Iohn saith 1 Ioh. 1 8. that if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us 43. Thereafter he giveth unto works an instrumental part in Iustification which is true of faith laying hold on the righteousness of Christ the only Objective Formal cause of Justification but cannot agree to works But he citeth some Protestants assenting to this as Polanus Symphon c. 27. whose words if understood of after pardon that is of sinnes committed after Justification as they may containe nothing but truth and that truth which we question not acknowledging that even iustified persons before remission of after sins must repent confesse and mourne for their sinnes and act faith on Christ. Zanchius in the words he citeth is expresly speaking of salvation not of Justification and to this end he might cite all the Protestants that I know of Amesius is speaking of the same As for Mr Baxter I have told already that his notions about Justification are not acceptable to all As for what he addeth about the word merite I shall not contend only I would say that seing it sounds so ill because of the common and known abuse thereof by Papists the less we use it the better seing Verba valent usu 44. Nor shall I say much against his conclusion of this mater Only while he tels us that such may confidently appear before God who sensible of their owne unworthiness and of the unprofitableness of all their works and endeavours c. did apply themselves unto the light within and suffered that grace to work in them and thereby are renewed quickened and have Christ risen in them and working in them to will to do having thus put on Christ and being clothed with him and made partakers of his righteousness When I say he speaketh thus he but cheateth his Reader giving him faire words and no more for as we have formerly seen in the examination of his Principles This light is but a Pelagian Grace if not worse common to all men Scythian and Barbarian And by vertue of this light without the least help of the grace of God for of grace assisting far lesse regenerating such as are in nature and so beginning every good work there is not in his writings the least mention if the man will but yeeld and of power and full ability to do this he maketh no question he becometh regenerated begotten of God partaker of the divine nature and what not And this is this Mans Sanctification and foundation of Justification whereof Pagans and Barbarians who never did nor never shall hear of Câ—rist are as capable as such who live within the visible Church and that without any new grace communicated by that which is borne with them Let the Reader now Judge what a Regeneration and Sanctification can flow from this which is in every man and what Justification that can be which is founded hereupon And whether or not this be a sure bottom to stand upon and with confidence to rest upon
while we are thinking of appearing before God And what an antievangelick Justification and Salvation it is which Quakers maintaine O what a dreadful Disappointment will such wretches that live and die according to these Principles meet with in end when it will be too late to helâ—e the matter by changing their thoughts Let all that fear God and would not destroy their owne souls beware of these men for their doctrine is damnable and devilish CHAP. XIV Of Perfection and a Possibility of not sinning 1. WE heard toward the end of the preceeding Chapter how he pleaded for the Perfection of the Saints and of the work of grace in them Here in his S. Thesis and its explication he giveth us his minde more fully In his Thesis he saith That this holy and immaculate birth when it is fully produced in any the body of sin and death is crucified and takâ—n away and their hearts become subject unto and united with the truth so that they obey no suggestions or temptations of Satan and are freed from actual sin and transgressing of the Law and in that respect they are perfect But yet this perfection admitteth of an increase and there remaineth alwayes in some respect a possibility of sinning if the minde doth not diligently and vigilantly attend unto God And so high and confident is he in this mater that he accounts the answere given to the 149. Question in our Larger Cathechisme Impious and spoken against the power of divine grace because it is there said No man is able either of himself Iam. 3 2. Ioh. 15 5. Rom. 8 3. or by any grace received in this life perfectly to keep the commandements of God Eccles. 7 20. 1 Ioh. 1 8 10. Gal. 5 17. Rom. 7 18 19. but doth dayly break them in thought Gen. 6 5 8 11. word and deed Rom. 3 9. to 21. Iam. 3 3 to 13. But whatever he thinketh we are not ashamed of this Answere nor of what is said Conf. of Faith Ch. 16. § 5. towards the end That our best works as they are wrought by us are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment Esa. 64 6. Gal. 5 17. Rom. 7 15 18. Psal. 130 3. 143 2. And ibid. § 4. They who in their obedience attaine to the greatest hight which is possible in this life are so far from being able to supererogate and to do more than God requires as that they fall short in much which in duty they are bound to do Luk. 17 10. Neh. 13 22. Iob 9 2 3. Gal. 5 17. Nor yet of what is said Chap. 13. § 2. This Sanctification is throughout in the whole man yet imperfect in this life there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part 1 Ioh. 1 vers 10. Rom. 7 vers 18 23. Phil. 3 vers 12. whence ariseth a continual and irreconcileable war the flesh lusting against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh Gal. 5 17. 1 Pet. 2 11. 2. This Perfection is commonly maintained by them all Mr Hicks in his 1. Dial. Pag. 50. tels us that they hold a perfect freedome from all sin in this life saying too Alas for thee where wouldest thou be perfâ—ctly free from sin if not in this lift Mr Stalham also in his book against them Pag. 138 c. manifesteth it by their owne words and arguments And though it may be matter of amazement to some to hear men speak so who of all others one would think have least cause to preach this doctrine without a publick declaration withal that they are not the men who are thus Perfect and consequently according to their owne doctrine are not Christians upon the account that he shall not ordinarily meet with in any hereticks writings so much Ignorance Boldness Foolish Confidence Abusing of Scripture Untruth Heresie Blasphemy Reproaching Revileing Calumnies Scolding c. As is every where to be found in theirs Yet when we consider what blasphemous grounds they lay downe we shall see that it is a native consequence of their doctrine For Mr Hicks in his 2. Dialog showeth us that Edw. Burroughs calleth Sanctification Christ himself and hence concludeth that to say Sanctification is imperfect is as much as to say Christ is imperfect But Christ is perfect therefore Sanctification is perfect And againe The Law in the minde is the Spirit of God To say the Law in the minde is imperfect is errour in the highest degree this is an abominable corrupt principle of errour the new man is perfect Peace and perfect Sanctification And Mr Clapham in his book against them Sect. 4. affirmeth out of a book called Saul's errand to Damascus that they maintaine themselves to be equal with God And that Hubberthorn in his book against Sherlock Pag. 30. doth alleige that place Phil. 2 5 6. to confirme it 3. It might also seem strange to hear men asserting their own Perfection who pretend so much to spiritual inward experiences and to so much acquantance with their owne hearts for who that will not wilfully put out their own eyes may not see and be assured of the deceitfulness of their heart above all things finde corruption riseing up on all occasions and setting forward to sin or hindering from good But when persons are given up of God to strong delusions as a punishment of their Pride and Vanity what high thoughts may they not have of themselvespunc seing such a doolful state is attended with more pride puffing them up and that blinding their eyes that they cannot see their spots nor see what the Law of God requireth and all this attended with ignorance of God and of his holy and Spiritual Law and worshipe And it may be this man supposeth with some Papists that venial faults as they call them are not against the Law of God or that command which they violat is not properly a command of the Law 4. What the truth is in this matter is declared above out of our Confession Catechisme and the passages of Scripture which are there cited to confirme the truth may be there seen and considered But before I speak any thing more for clearing of the Truth in this particular I would have the Reader take notice of one thing To wit That it cannot but be a stupenduous and astonishing thing and a manifest demonstration of the dreadful power of delusion when the Lord giveth up any unto that Spirit to hear men who pretend to Reason and to Religion and have not yet openly renunced all Faith of a God and all natural and humane Reason talke at this rate upon such grounds and assert with such boldness and confidence a Perfection of Degrees or a possibility of not sinning attaineable upon the principles and grounds which they lay downe what these are we have on several occasions hinted now shall do it yet once more The first rise and beginning of all their Religion
the earth shall swear by the God of truth he answereth That it was usual with the Prophets to express the great duties of the Gospel times in Mosaick termes as Ier. 31 38 39 40. Ezech. 36 25. 40. Esa. 45 23. And what the Prophet here speaketh of swearing Paul interpreteth it of confessing Rom. 14 11. Answ. That the Prophets use this way I confess But see no ground for this from Ier. 31 38. c. where the Prophet is foretelling the rebuilding of Iâ—rusalem which was accomplished in the dayes of Nehemiah And that Ezech. 36 25. is but a poor ground Nor doth that place Esai 45 23. give any countenance unto this though the Apostle Rom. 14 11. useth another word for swearing which is but exegitical thereof and the same upon the mater The only doubt remaineth whether swearing was properly ceremonial or not which the Apostles frequent practice mentioned in the preceeding argument and other arguments mentioned and to be mentioned evince not to have been ceremonial And there is more ground to make the bowing of the knee ceremonial then swearing by the name of the Lord. 12. In the tenth place he mentioneth that argument taken from Heb. 6 16. For men verily swear by the greater and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife he answereth Pag. 359. That Paul only sheweth what men in those dayes of controversie were wont to do but not what they should have done nor what the Saints did Answ. This being a practice not of any one age or people but of all ages and people whereby a principal end of swearing to wit the ending of a controversie and the right manner of going about it to wit in swearing by the greater is held forth and this being brought-in hereas an argument from the less to the more as if the Apostle had said if we believe a man who by nature is a liar when he sweareth and confirmeth what he saith by attesting God how much more ought we to believe God who is truth it self when he sweareth by himself having no greater to swear by sheweth the lawfulness and usefulness of this practice So that if this had been or were in it self a thing â—imply evil the Apostles argument would want its due force and cause men question if ever Gâ—d did or would swear it being such a sinful and an abominable thing â—roceeding from the Devil And so the whole argument and conclusion of the Apostle should be annulled and the maine pillar of our assurance and hope sâ—aken And though this differeth from these instances 1 Cor. 9 ver 24. and Luk. 14 vers 31. which he adduceth to invalidate this Yet neither can he prove that these are simply sinful and unlawful in all cases 13. As for the argument he proposeth next I owne it not and so am less concerned in his answere Only I would know what he meaneth by that expression a Christian whom God hath called unto his essential verity may no way swear What meaneth he by this essential verity And was not Paul called thereunto whatever it be How came it then that he did swear some way Were not the holy men of old called unto this essential verity how came it then that they did also sweare Such as Abraham Gen. 21 24. Iacob Gen 31 53. Ioseph Gen 47 35. Moses Iosh. 14 9. David 1 Sam. 20 3. 24 22 Ionathan 1 Sam. 20 16. Eliah 1 King 17 1. Gedaliah 2 King 25 24. Asa. 2 Chron. 15 14. Obadiah 1 King 18 10. Elisha 2 King 2 6 Are not Angels called unto this essential verity How came it then that they did swear Dan. 12 17. Revel 10 5 6 He citeth some passages of some heathens Pag. 360. who would not swear And what can this prove And what will Pythagoras prohibition evince Or Socrates his requireing that mens words should be firmer than oaths Or Plato's appearing against it These and the like may be good arguments for him whose Religion is but Paganish but have no force with us though I grant these and the like may shame Christians who regard even oathes so little He hath Pag. 361. a number of bare citations of places of some Fathers and Others without giving us their words any who hath these books may peruse them and see what they say All that I shall say is this Though it be true that many of the Fathers did in this assent to Pelagius yet the more common opinion was that Christians might in some cases lawfully sweare which they grounded upon the practice of Paul See Vossius Hist. Pelag. lib. 5. par 2. Antith 1. Pag. 513. c. And let the Reader peruse the citations he hath there adduced and he will see that some of this Quakers citations and Authors are against himself such as Cyprian Tertullian Augustine Polycarp and others The primitive Christians would not swear it is true neither by the Genius nor by the fortune of the Emperious See Tertul. Apol. Cap. 31. and from this some might gather that they would not swear at all which was certainly a mistake And we read that the Primitive Christians did sweare to be faithful to the Emperour as Vossius sheweth out of Vegetius lib 2. Cap. 5. Arnobius lib. 4. see also Dio in M. Antonino Tertul. de Cor. mil. c. 1. Eusebii histor lib 5. c. 5. He sheweth also how they used to sweare by the Eucharist out of Eusebii Histor. lib. 6. Chap. 35 The last argument which he mentioneth is not worth the naming and so I leave it 14. For a Conclusion to this let us take notice that Augustine was only labouring to keep oft unnecessary oathes and would have one and other shuning what they could the giving of oathes But would not simply condemne the taking or giving of oathes in weighty maters even under the Gospel And therefore speaking upon that sermon of Christ on the mount and having mentioned the expressions of Paul formerly spoken of he addeth Ita intelligitur praecepisse Deum ne Iuretur ne quisquam sicut bonum appetat jusjurandum assiduitate jurandi ad perjurium per consuetudinem delabatur Quapropter qui intelligit non in bonis sed necessariis jurationem habendam refrenet se quantum potest ut non eâ uâ—atur nisi necessitate cum videt pigros esse homines ad credendum quod ets utile est credere nisi juratione firmetur CHAP. XXXI Of Civil Honour 1. BEside what belongeth properly to Civil Honour of which we are now to speak there are other two particulars which he is pleased to speak something to in his Vindication of his last Thesis to wit against Vanity Prodigality in apparel and against Comoedies and such Playes concerning which I minde to be no adversary unto him only I must say he must be very affronted and shameless to suppose let be to say That all his Adversaries contenâ— for these as lawful and as no way contrary to Christian Religion