Explication of the Epistle to the Ephesians upon those words Chap. 2.5 He hath quickned us together with Christ says That all the Elect who are the Members of Christ when he by his death had expiated their sins were freed from the guilt of eternal death and obtained a right to eternal life Chamier hath much to this purpose Nobis potius est persuasissimum c. We are most certainly perswaded that our sins are pardoned before we do believe for we deny that Infants do believe and yet Infants have their sins forgiven And a little before viz. Chap. 6. of the same Book I deny saith he that Faith is the cause of our Justification for then our Justification would not be of Grace but of our selves but Faith is said to justifie not because it effecteth Justification but because it is effected in the justified person And in another place to the same purpose Faith doth neither merit obtain nor begin our Justification for if it did then Faith should go before Justification both in nature and time which may in no wise be granted for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification now there is no Sanctification but after Justification Quae re natura prior which is really and in its own nature before it Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier saith That Faith concurs no otherwise to Justification then in respect of the passive application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ unto himself but not in respect of the active application whereby God applieth unto man the Righteousness of Christ which application is in the minde of God and consequently from eternity Dr. Macouvius Professor of Divinity at Franeka hath a whole Determination to this purpose to prove that Justificacation actively considered or as it is the act of God blotting out our sins and imputing the Righteousness of Christ unto us goes before Faith Indeed he makes it to be not an immanent but a transient declared act which the Lord did when he first promised to send his Son to be our Mediator Gen. 3.15 Though one of our late Writers mentions this Doctors Opinion with much contempt and oscitancy calling his Assertions Strange senceless and abhorred which is the less to be regarded seeing he usually metes out the same measure unto all men else whose notions do not square with his own mould as to Dr. Twisse Mr. Walker and them that hold the imputation of Christs active Righteousness whom he calls A sort of ignorant and unstudied Divines c. Yet as he hath merited fairer usage amongst Christians for his other Labors So I dare say his Arguments in this particular will not seem so weak and ridiculous as Mr. Baxter maâ—â— them to an indifferent Reader that shall compare them with the Exceptions which he hath shaped unto them sharp Censures are but dull Answers Dr. Ames his Colâ—eague sayes no less who in his Marrow of Divinity having defined Justification to be the gracious Sentence of God by which he doth acquit us from sin and death and account us Righteous unto life he sayes That this sentence was long before in the minde of God and was pronounced when Christ our Head arose from the dead 2 Cor. 5.19 And in another place All they for whom Christ in the intention of God hath made satisfaction are reconciled unto God I might produce many others that are of eminent note who have asserted That all the Elect are reconciled and justified before they believe Now were all these Champions of Truth a pack of Antinomians and Libertines Hath Mr. Woodbridges humanity no better language to bestow upon them If he shall say he doth not mean them yet his reproaches do fall upon them for if Titius be an Antinomian for saying That the Elect are justified before they do believe Sempronius is an Antinomian who affirms the same § 6. Mr. Burges a man somewhat profuse in this kinde of Rhetorick seems willing to excuse some of those fore-mentioned Divines who have asserted the Remission of sins before Faith because they did it in a particular sence to oppose the Arminians who maintain a reconciliability and not a reconciliation by the death of Christ. But I believe he is not ignorant that Divine Truths are not to be measured by mens intentions let mens ends be never so good they cannot make Error to be Truth or if they are never so corrupt they cannot make Truth to be Error Nor do they whom he calls Antinomians assert Justification before Faith in any other sence then in respect of the absolute and immutable Will of God not to deal with his people according to their sins and in respect of the full satisfaction of Jesus Christ who by that one offering of himself hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified i. e. them whose sins are purged by his blood I could shew how frequently he and others have wounded some of our most eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety through the sides of Antinomians Mr. Burges in his Book of Justif. p. 219. calls it An Antinomian Similitude to say That as a man looking on the Wall through Red Glass conceives the Wall to be of the same colour so God looking upon us in Christ seeth nothing but the Righteousness of Christ in us and no sin at all Which Similitude is used by Dr. Reynolds in his Excellent Treatise on the 110 Psalm where he doth plainly assert that Doctrine which Mr. Burges condemns for Antinomianism Mr. Baxters Character of an Antinomian will bring all our Protestant Writers under this censure For with him they are Antinomians who hold 1 That our Evangelical Righteousness is without us in Christ or performed by him and not by our selves Or 2 That Justification is a free act of God without any condition on our part for the obtaining of it Or else 3 That Justification is an Immanent act and consequently from eternity which was the Judgement of Alsted Pemble Twisse Rutherford c. Or 4 That we must not perform duty for Life and Salvation but from Life and Salvation or that we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation the end of our endeavors but obey in thankfulness and because we are justified and saved c. Now let any man who is moderately versed in our Protestant Writers but speak on whom this Arrow falls I might instance in many others but I will not put the Reader unto so much trouble § 7. My business at present is to acquit this Doctrine of Justification in foro Dei before Faith from Mr. Woodbridges charge of Antinomianism And truly I wonder that he should give it this name For 1. It hath not the least affinity with the Antinomian Tenents which as they are related by Sleiden were That the Law is not to be Preached to bring men to Repentance or unto the sight of their sins That what ever a mans life be
Aphorisms who denies That Christs obedience is the material the imputation of his Righteousness the formal cause of our Justification or that Faith is the Instrument by which we do receive it he plainly ascribes the same kinde of causality unto Christ and Faith making them to differ onely secundum magis minus that Christ is the sine qua non principalis and Faith the sine qua non minus principalis he might have listed sin in the same rank which too is a sine qua non of our Justification That Faith and works in a larger sence are meritorious causes of Life and Blessedness Now we say with Mr. Cr. 1 That God is the efficient cause or the onely Justifier that he hath no motive or inducement but his own Grace and Love to will not to punish us and to give to us his Son thorow whom we have Redemption◠and Deliverance from the curse of the Law We say too 2 that Christ is the onely meritorious cause of our Justification taking Justification pro re volita for a transient effect of the Will of God that Jesus Christ hath by his death and satisfaction fully procured and merited our Discharge and Absolution from the penalty of the Law which we deserved by sin For which cause he is said to have purged our sins by himself i. e. Without the help and assistance of other means Heb. 1.3 There are many who ore tenùs in word do acknowledge That Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification that in deed do deny it The Papists in the Councel of Trent say That God is the efficient the glory of God the final the death of Christ the meritorious cause of our Justification But yet we know that they allow not this effect unto it unless other things do concur on our parts they say That Faith Charity c. do Impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Obtain and after a sort merit forgiveness though not by their own worth and dignity yet by vertue of Gods Covenant and Promise Too many of our Protestants setting aside the word merit which yet Mr. B. thinks may be admitted do tread directly in their steps they ascribe as much unto works as Papists do It is a poor requital unto Jesus Christ to call him the Meritorious cause of our Justification and in the mean while to deny the merit of his death as to the immediate purchases thereof and to ascribe at least a partial meritoriousness to other things 3 I shall go further with Mr. Cr. I freely grant him which I believe Mr. W. will stick at That Faith is the Instrument by which we receive and apply the Righteousness of Christ unto our selves whereby the gratious sentence of God acquitting us from our sins is conveyed and terminated in our Consciences We say indeed That Faith doth not concur to our Justification as a proper Physical Instrument which is a less principal Efficient cause Mr. Rutherford saith well That Faith is not the Organical or Instrumental cause either of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation thereof on our behalf By believing we do not cause either our Saviour to satisfie for our sins or God to accept of his satisfaction Every true Believer is perswaded That God hath laid aside his wrath and displeasure towards him for his sins having received a sufficient ransom and satisfaction for them in the death of his Son Sed hoc fides non facit saith he sed objectum jam factum praesupponit Faith is a Receptive not an Effective Instrument an Instrument not to procure but to receive Justification and Salvation which is freely given us in Jesus Christ. It is called an Instrumental cause of our Justification taking Justification passively not actively or in reference to that passive Application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ to himself but not to that active Application whereby God applyeth it to a man which is onely in the minde of God Therefore Calvin calls Faith Opus passivum a passive work § 4. Mr. Cr. proceeds This Doctrine saith he hath in all ages been opposed and obscured sometimes by open Enemies sometimes by professed Friends and such as would be accounted the great Pleaders for Free-grace It is most true That this Article of Free Justification hath and will be a Bone of Contention to the worlds end It is the cheif cause of all those contests and quarrels which have arisen between the Children of the Free-woman and the Children of the Bond-woman Mr. Fox hath well observed It is so strange to carnal Reason so dark to the World it hath so many enemies that except the Spirit of God from above do reveal it Learning cannot reach it Wisdom is offended Nature is astonished Devils do not know it Men do persecute it Satan labors for nothing more then that he may either quite bereave men of the knowledge of this truth or else corrupt the simplicity of it It is not unknown what batteries were raised against it in the very infancy of the Church how the Wits and Passions of men conspired to hinder it what monstrous consequences were charged upon the Doctrine and what odious practises were fathered upon them that did profess it never was any truth opposed with so much malice and bitterness as this hath been and by them especially that were most devout and zealous But when it could not be withstood and stifled Satan endeavored then to deprave and adulterate it by mixing of the Law with the Gospel our own Righteousness with Christs which corruption the Apostle hath strenuously opposed in all his Epistles and more especially in that to the Romans and Galatians where he excludes all and singular works of ours from sharing in the matter of our Justification For the eluding of whose Authority carnal Reason hath found out sundry shifts and distinctions As that the Apostle excludes onely works of Nature but not of Grace Legal but not Evangelical works and that our works though they are not Physical yet they may come in as Moral causes of our Justification It is certain That the most dangerous attempts against this Doctrine have been within the Church and by such as Mr. Cr. calls Professed Friends who have done so much the more mischief in regard they were least apt to be suspected Justification by works was generally exploded amongst us whilest it appeared under the names of Popery and Arminianism which since hath found an easie admittance being vented by some of better note such as would be accounted Pleaders for Free-grace § 5. Mr. Woodbridges Discourse saith Mr. Cr. deals not with the Errors of Papists Socinians Arminians but with Antinomian Error How unjustly our Doctrine is called Antinomian hath been shewn before and Mr. Cr. may be pleased to take notice That Mr. Rutherford accounts the Opinion we oppose the very cheif of the Arminians Socinians and Papists Errors about Justification to wit That
it being in terminis in the Text. I dare say no man that is called a Christian did ever deny it and therefore he might have spared his pains in transcribing any more places of Scripture for confirmation of it But I do much marvel That so learned a man as Mr. W. who pretends to be more then ordinarily accurate should take in hand a controverted Text and never open the Terms nor state the Question which he meant to handle for though it be a sinful curiosity for men by Dicotomies and Tricotomies Divisions and Subdivisions to mince and crumble the Scriptures till it hath lost the sense yet surely a workman that needs not to be ashamed ought rightly to divide the Word of Truth explain things that are obscure and dubious and where divers senses are given as he knows there are of this Text to disprove the false and confirm that which he conceives is true § 3. There is a vaste distance between the Apostles Proposition a man is justified by Faith and Mr. Woodbridges Inference Ergo Justification doth in no sence precede Faith Justification by Faith and Justification before Faith are not opposita but diversa though they differ yet they are not contradictory to each other The Scriptures which prove the former intend no strife or quarrel against the latter in a word The proof of the one doth not disprove the other The Scripture which he made his theam Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith we have peace with God c concludes nothing at all against Justification before Faith For 1 we may without any violence to the Text place the Comma after justified as thus Being justified by Faith we have peace with God This reading is agreeable both to the Apostles scope and to the Context His scope here was not to shew the efficacy of Faith in our Justification but what benefits we have by the death of Christ the first of which is Justification and the consequent thereof is peace with God Again the Illative Particle Therefore shews that this place is a Corollary or Deduction from the words immediately foregoing which ascribed our Justification wholly to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Chap. 4 ult The Apostle thence infers Being justified q. d. Seeing we are justified freely without works by the death of Christ by Faith we have peace with God the Lord powerfully drawing our hearts to believe this we have boldness and confidence towards God the cause of fear being taken away or as the Syriack and vulgar Latin read it Let us have peace with God let us by Faith improve this Grace for the establishing of our hearts in perfect peace Now according to this reading his own Text will give in evidence against him That Faith is not the cause or antecedent but an effect and consequent of our Justification procured and obtained by the death of Christ. But 2 if we take the words as commonly they are read the sence comes all to one scil That being justified by Christ who is the sole object of our Faith we have peace with God who by the Faith which he creates in us causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation by vertue whereof our Conscience is so firmly grounded that we are not moved by any temptation or beaten down by any terror The Work of Faith is not to procure our Justification but to beget peace in our Consciences So then the words being rightly understood they neither deny Justification before Faith nor assert Justification by the act or habit of Faith which Mr. W. would conclude from thence § 4. The next Scripture whose suffrage is desired against us is Gal. 2.16 We have believed in Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ. Where sayes Mr. W. Justification is expresly made a Consequent of Faith To which I Answer 1 That this doth no more infer That we are not justified before we believe then that of our Saviour Matth. 5.44 45. Love your enemies c. that ye may be the children of your Father in Heaven infers That works do go before adoption contrary to Eph. 1.5 6. 1 Joh. 3.3 the phrase that ye may be there is as much as that ye may be manifested and declared that ye may shew your selves or that all men may know that ye are the children of God by practising a duty so much above the reach of Nature and Morality A like place we have Rom. 3.26 God set forth his Son to declare his Righteousness that he might be just Now shall we hence infer That God was not just before or that Gods justice was a consequent of his sending Christ Now if we can understand that clause that he might be just That he might be known and acknowledged to be just Why may we not as well take this of the Apostle that we might be justified in the same construction that we might know that we are justified and live in the comfort and enjoyment of it So that not the Being of our Justification but the Knowledge and Feeling of it is a consequent of Faith Things in Scripture are then said to be when they are known to be so John 15.8 our Saviour tells the Disciples That if they did bear much fruit they should be his Disciples i. e. They should be known and manifested to be his Disciples as Chap. 13.35 Our Saviour is said at his Resurrection to have become the Son of God Acts 13.33 Because then as the Apostle speaks he was powerfully declared to be the Son of God Rom. 1.3 Again things are saâ—d not to be which do not appear as Melchisedec is said to be without Father and Mother c. Heb. 7.3 Because his Linage and Pedigree is not known so we are said to be justified or not justified according as this Grace is revealed to us But 2 in the Text it is We have believed that we might be justified by Faith so that from hence it can be inferred onely That we are not justified by Faith before believing and that the sentence of Justification is not terminated in our Consciences before we do believe § 5. His next Proof is grounded upon the order of the words Rom. 8.30 As glory saith he follows Justification so doth Justification follow Vocation unto Faith Whereunto I answer 〈◊〉 That the order of words in Scripture do not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves The Jews have a Proverb Non esse prius aut posterius in Scriptura The first and last must not be strictly urged in Scripture for that is not always set first which is first in Nature If we should reason from the order of words in Scripture we should make many absurdities as 1 Sam. 6.14 It is said that they clave the Wood of the Cart and offered the Kine for a burnt offering unto the Lord And then in the next Verse it follows That the Levites took down the Ark out of the Cart as
be justified by our Faith I see no absurdity at all to say That Faith is from Justification causally and Justification by Faith evidentially That Grace which justifies us is the Cause and Fountain of all good things whatsoever both of Spiritual and Temporal Blessings and more especially of Faith 2 Pet. 1.1 Phil. 1.29 Yet doth it not follow That We must invert the order of the Gospel and instead of saying Believe and thou shalt be justified we must say hence forward Thou art justified therefore believe 1 Because it is not the priviledge of all men to whom we Preach but onely of the Elect of God And 2 because we know not who are justified no more then who are elected though Faith be an effect or sign of Election yet it doth not follow that we must say to any Thou art elected therefore believe 3 When the cause is not notior effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause as in the present case § 6. Thirdly He loads it with this seeming absurdity That then it will unavoidably follow That we are justified by works as well as by Faith for works are an effect of Justification as well as Faith 1 It follows unavoidably from his own opinion For if Faith be taken in a proper sence for the Act of Believing it follows That we are justified by a work of our own or if Faith be the condition of Justification it will follow likewise That we are no more justified by Faith then by other works as Repentance Charity c. Which Mr. W. and others of his strain do make the conditions of their supposed Justification so that he is like to father the Childe which he hath sought to lay at our doors 2 It is not denied That Works do declare and evidence our Justification where the Apostle denies our Justification to be by Works he speaks of our real and formal Justification in the sight of God which he affirms is by Faith scil Objectively taken and not of the declaring or evidencing of our Justification which Saint James in his Epistle attributes to Works in reference to men and other Scriptures to Faith in reference to the Conscience of the person justified Romans 1.17 Galatians 2.16 3 Though works be the effect of justification as well as faith yet it will no follow that works do evidence our justificationas well as faith doth 1 Because every effect is not apt to evidence its cause especially when the same effect may proceed from severall causes as smoak is not so certaine an evidence of fire as light and heat is because steems and mists are so like to smoak so works do not evidence our justification so clearly and certainly 〈◊〉 Faith doth because works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality c. as those Heathens have performed 2 Because every effect doth not evidence to every faculty a like but this to one and that to another as for instance forme or Physiognomy doth evidence a man to sence but yet reason requires another manner of evidence so conscience requires a better evidence of our justification then works can give Workâ— do evidence it in the judgement of charity and before men but they do not evidence it in the judgement of infallibility or with that clearnesse and demonstrative certainty which the conscience requires conscience will need a better evidence then works can give Paul could plead his works before men 2 Cor. 1.12 which yet he never mentions in the pleas of his conscience towards God and that which conscience dares not plead before God can bee no good evidence unto conscience § 7. The other horn of his Dilemma will be frayd as easily as the former Faith saith he doth not evidence justification properly for then it must doe it either immediately and Axiomatically as it is an assent to this Proposition I am justified or else remotely and syllogistically by drawing a particular conclusion of our own justification out of generall propositions But Faith doth not evidence our justification Axiomatically c. For 1 There is no such thing written the Scripture doth no where say Thou Paul thou Peter or thou Thomas art justified Ergo Justification cannot be evidenced by Faith immediately Mr. W. here mistakes the nature of true justifying Faith who it seems conceives it to be a bare intellectuall assent to the truth of a Proposition such as Devils and Reprobates may attaine unto contrary to all Orthodox Divines who doe place Faith more in the Will then in the Understanding Justifying Faith essentially include 1. An assent of the understanding to the truth of the Scriptures revealing the sole-sufficiency of Christ for the reconciliation of sinners and the non-imputation of sin as also the will and command of God that all men should beleeve in him alone for life and salvation 2 a Fiduciall adherence and reliance of the will upon the same Christ the understanding being made effectually to assent and subscribe to the fore-mentioned propositions sub ratione veri the will is also powerfully drawne to accept imbrace and adhere unto Christ sub natione boni Our Divines doe include both these acts in the definition of Faith making it to be fiducialis assensus or assensus cum gustu such an assent unto the truths of the Gospell as that withall the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same and thereupon â—esteth and relieth upon Christ for all the benefits of his death They make the principall act of Faith to be the reliance of the heart or wil upon Jesus Christ and therefore they determine that the object of Justifying Faith is not a Proposition or Axiom but Christ the mercy of God in Christ on whom whosoever rests and roules himselfe upon the call of the Gospel hath a certain evidence of his Interest in Christ and in all the treasures of righteousnesse and remission that are in him according to the degree of his affiance or his taste of sweetnesse in Christ is his evidence or assurance of his owne interest and propriety in him There is no sense that doth apprehend its object with more certainty then that of Tasting as he that tastes hony knows both the sweetnesse thereof and that he himselfe injoyes it So he that tastes the sweetnesse of the Gospell Promises and of that precious Grace which is therein revealed knows his interest and propriety therein It is observed of Jonathan 1 Sam. 14.27 When he tasted a little hony his eyes were inlightned and the Psalmist exhorts us to taste and see how good the Lord is The soule that tastes i. e. beleeves the Gospell and the goodnesse of God therein revealed to sinners sees and knowes his interest therein for all manner of sweetnesse is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing that causeth it unto which the nearer our interest is the greater is the sweetnesse which we find in it The Soul cannot taste
this censure when he hath weighed the reasons I shall give That Faith cannot be said to Justifie by way of disposition or as a passive condition morally disposing us for Justification CHAP. IX That Faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie us for Justification IN regard that the main Point in difference between me and Mr. W. lyes at the bottom of this Answer I shall make it appear we are not said to be Justified by Faith in a Scripture sence because Faith is required of us as a passive condition to qualifie us for justification in the sight of God § 1. That Interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to Faith in the businesse of our Justification then to other works of sanctification cannot be true The reason is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.16.3.11 But to interpret justification by faith meerly thus That Faith is a condition to quâ—lifie us for Justification gives no more to Faith then to other works of sanctification as to repentance charity and all other duties of new obedience which Mr. W. and others of the same affirmation make to be necessary antecedent conditions of Justification Mr. B. includes all works of obedience to evangelical precepts in the definition of Faith in which senâ—e I presume no Papist will deny that we are justified by Faiâ—h alone taking it as he doth for fides formata or faith animated with charity and other good works And therefore Bellarm. disputing against Justification by Faith alone sayes that if wee could be perswaded that Faith doth justifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Justificationem which is granted him if Faith be an antecedent federal condition disposing us for it then we would never deny that love fear hope c. did justifie as well as Faith Dr. Hammond sayes expressely That neither Paul nor James doe exclude or separate faithfull actions or the acts of faith from Faith or the condition of Justification but absolutely require them as the onely things by which we are justified Which in another place he goes about to prove by this argument That without which we are not justified and by which joyned with Faith we are justified is not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our Justification but required together with Faith as the only things by which as by a condition a man is justified But without acts of Faith or faithfull actions we are not justified and by them wee are justified and not by Faith onely Therefore faithfull actions or acts of Faith are not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our Justification but required together with Faith as the onely things by which as by a condition a man is justified It is evident that he and other abetters to this notion attribute no more to Faith in our Justification then to other works of sanctification Now this was witnessed against as an unsound opinion a pernicious error and utterly repugnant to the sacred Scriptures c. by Mr. Cranford amongst the London Subscribers Decemb. 14. 1647 and by Mr. W. himselfe if I mistake not amongst the Subscribers in other Counties It seems by Mr. W. they were bewitched when they gave their hands unto that Testimony § 2. That Interpretation of this phrase which gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature I meane such as may be found in naturall and unregenerate men is not true The Reason is because a man may have such works and yet not be justified But to interpret Justification by Faith that Faith is a necessary antecedent condition of our Justification gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature as to sight of sin legall sorrow c. which have been found in naturall and unregenerate men as in Cain Saul Judas c. I presume Mr. W. will say that these are necessary antecedent conditions in every one that is justified for if these be conditions disposing us to Faith and Faith a condition disposing us to Justification then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification for causae causae est causa causati if these legall works are conditions of Faith they must be according to Mr. Woodbridges Tenet conditions of Justification and consequently they are in eodem genere causae with Faith it selfe quod erat demonstrandum § 3. 3 That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification but Faith considered as a meer passive condition is not in the sence of our adversaries a proper efficient meritorious cause of Justification therefore wee are not said to bee justified by Faith as a passive condition or qualification required to make us capable of Justification The assumption is granted by our opponents at least verbo tenus who doe therefore call it a meer sine qua non which Logicians make to be causa ociosa nihil efficiens and a passive condition to exclude it from all manner of causality in producing the effect though for my own part I look upon conditions in contracts and covenants as proper efficient meritorious causes of the things covenanted which do produce their effects though not by their innate worth yet by vertue of the compact and agreement made between the parties covenanting But of this we shal have occasion to speak more by and by It remains only that I should clear the major that That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification which appears 1. By the use of these Propositions by and through in ordinary speech which note that the thing to which they are attributed is either a meritorious or instrumentall cause of the effect that follows as when we say a Souldier was raised by his valor it imports that his valor was the meritorious cause of his preferment and when we say a Tradesman lives by his Trade our meaning is that his Trade is the means or instrument by which he gets his living So here in the case before us when it is said a man is justified by Faith it implyes that Faith is either the meritorious or instrumentall cause of his Justification as if it be taken objectively for Christ and his merits it is the meritorious cause of our Justification in foro dei or if it be taken properly for the act of believing it is the instrumental cause of our Justification in foro conscientiae 2. From the contrary phrase as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by Works and by the Law without doubt his intent was to exclude Works from any causal influx into our Justification Now that which he denies to Works he ascribes to Faith and therefore Justification by Faith implies that Faith in his sense hath a true causality or proper efficiency in our
within them that they have quite forgotten nay some have utterly denied the Christ without them that God-man who is the onely Propitiation for our sins How much cause then my Brethren have we of continuall thankfulnesse unto our God who in so generall a defection hath been pleased to keep us that we are not led aside with the deceivablenesse of this unrighteousnesse and to lead us to that rock which is above us For how ever the world doth account of Pharisisme yet they that have any acquaintance with the mind of God know there can be hardly named a greater sin then the establishing our ownâ— righteousnesse It is the good pleasure of God for which everlasting praise be given unto him to reveale those things unto babes which are hiden from the wise and prudent The Gospel hath been and will be a mystery to the worlds end Humane reason cannot conceive how men should buy without mony or become rich by stripping and emptying of themselves attain unto righteousnesse by renouncing and abhorring their own righteousnesses Hence it is that the Doctrine of an unconditionate Covenant and the Free Justification of a sinner is looked upon by our learned Rabbies as such a foolish and ridiculous conceit A great Master in our Israel speaks strangely of it Unconditionate promises saith he beget onely an irrational fallacious foundationless Faith which the bigger it swells the more dangerous it proves And a little after he calls the Faith and Hope begotten by such promises A dependance on some fatal chain some Necromantick trick of believing thou shalt be saved and thou shalt be saved nay on Satan himself some responce of his Oracle c. And not much before It is a miracle says he that they who believe this Doctrine of unconditional Prâ—mises are yet restrained from making this so natural a use of it from running into all the riots in the World I remember a good Note of his from John 7.48 That the greatest Schollars are not always the soundest Christians We see Christianity is not Book-Learning nor is Faith attained to by strength of parts I should might I be so bold humbly ask this Learned Doctor Whether the Faith and Hope of all the Saints we read of in the Scripture were an irrational fallacious and foundationless Faith Now let him shew us any one of them that in his addresses unto God did ever plead a Conditional Promiseâ— That of Hezekiah 2 King 20.3 is of a peculiar consideration I remember Luther calls it Stulti loquium Hezekiae Others that excuse it say That Hezekiah draws his Argument not from his own works but from Gods he reasons from what God had done for him that he would do more and bestow the mercy which then he needed But besides him from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation we do not finde that any of Gods people have used any other plea unto God or have had any other support for their Hope and Confidence then his free promises of Grace and Mercy not onely the woman of Canaan the Publican and such as they were but Abraham Jacob Moses David Paul c. have all of them Fled for refuge unto these promises their Faith never knew any other bottom or foundation besides this Is it an irrational thing to receive life as a gift and not as wages It were very strange if the Mercy and Faithfulness of God should not be as sure a Foundation to relie upon as our own Works I will be bold to say Whosoever do build upon other Foundations besides the free Promise of Mercy they will have no better success then he who built his house upon the Sand Matth. 7.27 They may perchance when it is too late experiment the fallacy they have put upon their own souls The Doctor is as much mistaken in the use of the point as he is in the Doctrine to say That the natural use of it is to run into all the riâ—â—s in the world he might have taken notice where the Holy Ghost makes another use of it Tit. 2.11 Luke 1.74 2 Cor. 7.1 And right reason would have suggested that the freer the Promise is the more is the love and bounty of the Promiser shewn Now Love naturally begets Love Publicans saith our Saviour will love those that love them and can a man believe so great a benefit as the free remission of his sins and not love him that hath remitted them Possibly a man that hath received this Grace but in the notion may draw such untoward conclusions from it but for any true Believer to sin upon this ground is as impossible as that light should become darkness 1 John 3.3 9. I must confess the loose and unevâ—n walking of many Professors hath given too much occasion unto Adversaries to Blaspheme this Doctrine And though it be unjust in them to charge the faults of Professors upon their Profession yet you cannot but see how much it concerns them who have hope of Salvation through Christ alone to vindicate the honor of this Grace and by their exemplariness in wel-doing to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men The vindication of this Doctrine lies as much upon private Christians as it doth upon Ministers the strongest Arguments against it are but the Suppositions and Consequences of carnal Reason which are soonest confuted by a holy Conversation in which respect illiterate men may be irrefragable Disputants and women may nonplus the learnedst Doctor And therefore whilest I am in this Tabernacle I shall not cease to stir you up by putting you in remembrance of these things though you know them and are established in the present truth Some of you know how unwillingly I undertook this Publick Imployment being more inclined to the Truel then the Sword to build up my Hearers in their most Holy Faith then to engage in Controversies against Opposâ—rs And truly nothing could have induced me to it but the tendency of the Work to your Edification that the simplicity of the Gospel may abide amongst you and that you may stand fast in the Truth which you have received being able to answer the cavils of them that do oppose it It was not least in my eye That our honest Neighbors who by the evil arts of some that affect preheminence have been prejudiced and disaffected towards us may see and satisfie themselves Whether we believe and contend for any other Faith then that which was once delivered â—nto the Saints for surely they will have but little comfort in separating from us without a cause I must needs tell them their account at last will not be with joy who have rejected the counsel of God against themselves Whatsoever success this Discourse may finde with others I doubt not but it will be an acceptable service unto you I desire that it may provoke you to be more instant in Prayer for me that â—tterance may be given me and that my
by Justification we are to understand a Justification in the Court of Conscience or the Evidence and Declaration of a Justification already past before God So that Faith is said to justifie us not because it doth justifie us before God but because it doth declare to our Consciences that we are justified Now because this report is very imperfect I shall crave the patience of the Reader whilest I declare our Judgement a little more fully concerning this Matter together with the Grounds and Reasons that do uphold it and then I shall return to secure this Answer against the Exceptions Mr. W. hath made against it But first I shall shew the several Explications which Divines have given of his Proposition A man is justified by Faith CHAP. VI. The several Opinions of Divines touching the meaning of this Position A man is justified by Faith THe Question depending between me and Mr. W. is not Whether we are justified by Faith which the Scripture frequently affirms and no man that I know denies it Papists and Protestants Orthodox and Socinians Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants do unanimously consent That we are justified by Faith All the difference is about the Sense and Meaning of this Proposition A man is justified by Faith Whether Faith therein be to be taken Properly or Tropically For though there be great variety in Expression amongst Divines concerning this Matter yet all their several Opinions and Explications may be reduced unto these two heads The first takes Faith in sensu proprio for the act or habit of Faith the other takes Faith metonymicè relativè for the object of Faith i. e. The obedience and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. § 2. Our Protestant Divines who have hitherto been counted Orthodox do take Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith in a Tropical and Fâ—gurative Sence as thus A man is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by Faith i. e. By the Obedience and Righteousness of Jesus Christ in whom we believe and upon whom we relie for Life and Righteousness Nor is this any unusual Trope either in Scripture or in other Authors to put Habitum vel actum pro objecto as Rom. 8.24 Hope that is seen is not hope i. e. The thing that is seen is not hoped for Christ is oftentimes called our Hope our Joy our Love c. because he is the object of these Acts and Affections when the same thing is attributed distinctly both to the act and the object it must needs be attributed to one in a proper and to the other in an improper sence and therefore says Dr. Downham When Justification is attributed to Faith it cannot be attributed in the same sence as to the death and obedience of Christ in propriety of Speech but of necessity it is to be understood by a Metonymy Faith being put for the object of Faith which is the Righteousness of Christ c. And holy Pemble If we list not to be contentious it is plain enough saith he that in those places where the Apostle treats of Justification by Faith he means the Grace of God in Jesus Christ opposing Works and Faith that is the Law and the Gospel the Righteousness of the Law to the Righteousness of the Gospel which is no other but the Righteousness of Christ. Thus saith he Faith is taken Gal. 3.23 before Faith came i. e. Before Christ came and the clear exhibition of his Righteousness And in this sence as another hath observed it is used at least thirteen times in this Chapter where the Apostle expresly treats of our Justification before God Albertus Pighius though a Papist was so far convinced of this truth by reading of Calvins Institutions that he acknowledged If we speak formally and properly we are justified neither by Faith nor Charity but by the onely Righteousness of Christ communicated to us and by the onely mercy of God forgiving our sins § 3. Some of our Divines who do utterly deny That Faith in this Question is taken sensu proprio or that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of believing is imputed to us for Righteousness do yet ascribe an instrumentallity or inferior causality unto Faith it self in our Justification before God They say That we are justified by Faith instrumentally and relatively which terms I confess sound harshly in my ears but I hope I shall be excused if I do not understand them seeing a far learneder man then my self hath professed That they were not very intelligible to him That Faith is taken relatively in this Question of Justification to wit For the object it relates unto Christ and his Righteousness I do readily grant but that it justifies us Relatively I cannot assent to it for it seems to me to carry this sence with it either 1 that Faith doth procure our Justification though not by its own worth and dignity yet through the vertue and merit of its object As the Papists say of Works That they do justifie and save us tincta sanguine Christi being dipped in the Blood of Christ Or 2 that Faith together with Christ its object doth make us just in the sight of God whereby it is made a social cause with the blood of Christ which shall be sufficiently disproved anon Again that Faith is a passive Instrument of our Justification to wit such an Instrument whereby we receive and apply this benefit to our selves was shewn before but that it is an active efficacious Instrument to make us just and righteous in the sight of God is no part of my Creed For 1. it seems to me a contradiction to say That Faith is not to be taken sensu proprio but metonymicè for the object thereof and yet say That we are justified by Faith instrumentally for it is not the object but the act of Faith which is an Instrument Faith considered as an Instrument is taken sensu proprio and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere which they disclaim must be said to justifie 2. Mr. Baxter in my judgement disputes rationally against this notion If Faith saith he be the Instrument of our Justification it is the Instrument either of God or man not of man for Justification is Gods act he is the sole Justifier Rom. 3.26 man doth not justifie himself not of God for it is not God that believeth To which I adde that God neither needs nor is capable of using an Instrument in the act of justifying for though he useth Instruments to declare and reveal this Grace to sinners yet not to will it to particular persons the acts of his will are not wrought by any Organ or Instrument without himself 3. By making Faith the Instrument of our Justification Justification is made the Effect and Faith the Cause and so consequently a man shall be said to justifie himself whereas the Scripture every where ascribes our Justification unto God and Christ making
us totally passive in this work Rom. 3.24 26. 8.33 Eph. 2.8 We can no more justifie our selves then raise our selves from the dead Eph. 2.1 5. or then we could give our selves a being when as yet we were not Vers 10. Man is so far from being the total or principal Cause of his Justification that he is no cause at all by ascribing the least causality or efficiency to man in his Justification we derogate from the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. § 4. Others do take Faith in a proper sence as the Papists Socinians and Remonstrants amongst whom though there be some difference in Expression yet they all agree in this That by Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith is meant the act or habit of Faith or such a Faith as is accompanied with faithful Actions The Papists say That Faith and other inherent Graces though in their own nature they do not deserve Justification yet through the merits of Christ and Gods gracious acceptance they do procure and obtain the forgiveness of our sins Though they ascribe a meritoriousness to Faith it is but in a qualified sence Faith saith Bellarmine doth but Suo quidem modo mereri remissionem after a manner merit remission scil By vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant who hath annexed forgiveness unto this condition If a King saith he doth promise a Beggar a thousand pound a year upon no condition then indeed the Beggar doth not deserve it but if it be upon condition that he do some small matter as to come and fetch it or to bring him a Posie of flowers then he doth deserve it because the promiser is bound unto performance And in this sence Mr. B. ascribes a meritoriousness to works But the chief difference between them and us lies in this We say a man is justified by the imputation of Christs Righteousness they That we are justified by inherent Righteousness or by doing of Righteous Actions such as are Faith Love Fear c. Ipsa fides in Christum saith Bellarmine est justitia Faith it self is our righteousness And that it doth justifie us impetrando promerendo inchoando â—ustificationem Arminius and the Remonstrants though they have exploded the word merit yet they attribute as much to Faith and faithful Actions as the Papists themselves Dico saith Arminius ipsum fidei actum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputari in justitiam idquè sensu proprio non metonymicè The very same is affirmed by Vorstius Bertius Episcopius and the rest of the Remonstrants Their Opinion in brief is this That God in the Legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to perform Which say they is procured by the merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect faith to be perfect Righteousness § 5. Some of our late Divines who seem to disclaim the Doctrine of the Papists and Arminians say the very same who explain themselves to this effect That Faith doth justifie as a condition or antecedent qualification by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God The fulfilling of which condition say they is our Evangelical Righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God Mr. B. is so fond of this notion That although in one place he findes fault with the length of our Creeds and Confessions yet he would have this made an article of our Creed a part of our Childrens Catechisms and to be believed by every man that is a Christian so apt are we to smile upon our own Babes Though I honor Mr. Baxter for his excellent parts yet I must suspend my assent to his new Creed I shall prove anon That Faith is not said to justifie as an antecedent condition which qualifies us for Justification but at present I shall onely render him the Reasons of my disbelief Why I cannot look upon Faith as that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified I shall not insist upon it though it be not altogether unconsiderable that this notion is guilty of too much confederacy with the aforenamed enemies of the Christian Faith for though it is no good Argument to say That Papists Socinians c. do hold this or that therefore it is not true yet it will follow That such and such Tenents have been held by Papists c. and unanimously opposed by our Protestant Writers therefore they ought to be the more suspected and especially such Tenents of theirs as are the cheif points in difference between us and them as this is Our Brethren that have started this notion do take Faith as the others do in a proper sence they attribute as much to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere as Bellarmine Arminius or any other Faith it self says Mr. B. is our Righteousness There was never any Papist so absurd as to say That our Faith Love c. are perfect Legal Righteousness but that God judicio misericordiae non justitiae doth account and accept of it instead of perfect Righteousness For my part I must confess that I can see no dâ—fference between them but in Expression The Papists do acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ and that he is the meritorious cause of our Justification They say indeed That we are not justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed but by a Righteousness inherent in us or righteous actions performed by us And what do our Brethren say less less then this But I shall not follow the Parallel any further § 6. The Reasons which turn the Scales of my Judgement against this notion That our Faith or Faithful Actions are that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified Are 1. If we are not justified by our own works then our believing c. is not that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified but we are not justified by our own works Ergo. The Assumption is written with a Sun beam throughout the Scripture Tit. 3.5 Not by works of Righteousness which we have done Rom. 11.6 If it be of Works then were Grace no more Grace It is the cheif scope of the Apostle throughout this and the Epistle to the Galatians to prove That we are not justified by works The sequel of the Proposition is as evident Because Faith and Obedience to Gospel Precepts are our works It is man that believes and obeys and not God though we do them by his help and assistance yet they are our acts or works so that consequently we are not justified by them in the sight of God The Papists to elude the force of this Argument say That the minde of the Apostle was onely to exclude from Justification works of Nature and not of Grace works which we our selves do by our own strength without the help
of Grace and not those works which we do by the aid of Grace But Mr. Pemble answers well This distinction of works done without grace and works done by grace was devised by one that had neither wit nor grace being a meer trick to elude the force of such Scriptures as do indefinitely exclude all works from our Justification without distinguishing either of the time when they are done whether before or after o◠of the aid and help whereby they are done whether by Nature or by Grace Others say that when the Apostle denies That we are justified by works he means that we are not justified by the works of the Law but yet by works required in the Gospel such as are Faith and Faithful actions we may be justified To which I answer 1 That the Apostle speaks indefinitely now the rule is Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit An indefinite Proposition is equivalent to a universal A man is not justified by works is as much as if he had said A man is not justified by any works of his own 2 The Apostle excludes all works from our Justification which do make the reward to be a due debt Rom. 4.4 5. Now the works required in the Gospel supposing it to be a Conditional Covenant when they are performed do make the thing covenanted a due debt which the promiser is bound to give no less then works required in the Law 3 He denies expresly that Abraham was justified by faithful actions which he performed by the help and assistance of Gods Spirit Rom 4.2 4 They are the same works for the substance which are commanded in the Law and the Gospel there is no Precept enjoyned us in the New Testament which is not also commanded us in the Moral Law though the Law doth not expresly command us to believe in Christ yet virtually and by consequence it doth The Law requires us to believe whatsoever God shall reveal or propose to us to be believed and consequently to believe in Christ when God in his Gospel shall reveal him to us There is no reason therefore to interpret this Proposition A man is not justified by works He is not justified by Legal but by Evangelical works seeing they are for substance one and the same 5 There would be no such opposition between Justification by Works and Justification by Faith as the Apostle makes if we were justified by Evangelical works of our own performing All his disputing about Justification would amount but to meer Logomachy or strife of words for there was never any man so sottish as to think that a sinner can be justified by Legal works unless the Law be mitigated and the rigor thereof be in part remitted The Apostle doth not dispute against Justification by works which we cannot perform but by works which men presume they are able to perform He excludes not onely perfect works but all manner of works that are wrought by us § 7. 2. If the Righteousness whereby we are justified be a perfect Righteousness then we are not justified by our Obedience to Gospel precepts But the Righteousness whereby we are justified is a perfect Righteousness Ergo. The Sequel is evident because our Obedience to Gospel precepts is imperfect and defective at least in degrees we do not believe love and obey so perfectly as we ought the best of us may say with him in the Gospel Lord I believe help thou my unbelief Mark 9.24 And when we have done our utmost that we are but unprofitable servants Luke 17.10 Now this imperfection and defect in our Faith and other vertues being defectus debiti in esse is sinful and culpable for which cause our Saviour oftentimes sharply reproved it Matth. 6.30 8.26 14.31 16.8 c. And we are oftentimes exhorted to increase our Faith to abound in duties of Obedience and to perfect holiness Luke 17.5 1 Thes. 4.1 2 Cor. 7 1. In this last place the Apostle hints that the imperfection of our holiness ariseth from the filthiness of the flesh and spirit and consequently it is a defiled and sinful imperfection The Assumption that we are not justified by an imperfect righteousness needs not I suppose any long proof for surely God will not account that for perfect justice which is not so indeed for as the Apostle sayes well The judgement of God is according to truth Rom. 2.2 It is certain God will not justifie any man without Righteousness and it is as certain That God will not account that to be perfect Righteousness which is imperfect and sinful to say That God doth not account our imperfect holiness to be Righteousness judicio justitiae but onely judicio misericordiae is a meer shift which serves but to set the attributes of God at variance between themselves which in the Justification of a sinner do kiss and embrace each other Psal. 85.10 When God judgeth according to mercy he judgeth according to truth his merciful judgement is a just and a righteous judgement the mercy of God is shewn not in accounting a sinner perfectly righteous for that Righteousness which is imperfect but in accounting to him that Righteousness which is not his own the perfect Righteousness of the Mediator In this judgement of God Justice and Mercy do both meet Justice in that he will not justifie a sinner without a perfect Righteousness Mercy in that he will accept him for such a Righteousness which is neither in him nor performed by him but by his surety the Lord Jesus Christ. Some of our Protestant Divines do call Inherent holiness Evangelical Righteousness in respect of the principle from whence it flows A heart purified by Faith and to distinguish it from that Legal Righteousness which Reprobates and Unbelievers have attained to being but the fruit of a Natural Conscience I am sure it is no Protestant Doctrine that Inherent Sanctification which on all hands is acknowledged to be imperfect and defective is that Evangelical Righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God which must needs be such a Righteousness as God himself sitting on the Throne of his Justice can finde no fault with at all but doth present the person that hath it just and perfect before Gods Tribunal 3. If the Righteousness whereby we are justified be the Righteousness of God then we are not justified by our Obedience to Gospel precepts but the Righteousness whereby we are justified is the Righteousness of God Ergo. The Sequel is clear because our Obedience to Gospel precepts is not that Righteousness which the Scripture calls the Righteousness of God For though we receive it from God it being the gift of his Grace yet it is every where called ours as our Faith Matth. 9.2 22. Rom. 1.8 Hab. 2.4 Jam. 1.3 Our Charity 2 Cor. 8.8 24 1 Cor. 16.24 Philem. v. 1 7. Our Hope Phil. 1.20 1 Thes. 2.19 Our good Works Matth. 5.16 Revel 2.2 Our Patience Luke 21.19 2 Thes. 1.4 Revel
or adulti yet to all the Elect to whom the effects of the Covenant and Seals do onely really belong it is real and absolute It is no other then the Sentence of God himself declaring his non-imputation of sin unto them and their deliverance from death by Jesus Christ § 12. 2. Internally in foro Conscientiae at their effectual Vocation when the Lord by the Preaching of the Gospel doth powerfully perswade their hearts to believe in Christ for the Elect themselves before Faith have no knowledge or comfort either of Gods gracious volitions towards them or of Christs undertakings and purchases in their behalf In which respect they are said to be without Christ and without God in the world Eph. 2.12 and Gal. 4.1 They are compared to an Heir under age who differs nothing from a Servant though he be the Lord of all By Faith we come to see that everlasting love wherewith we were loved and that plenteous Redemption which Christ hath wrought for us for which cause Faith is called The evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 And God is said thereby to reveal his Righteousness from Heaven to us Rom. 1.17 And to reveal his Son in us Gal. 1.16 Now in this sence men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the medium or Instrument whereby the Sentence of Forgiveness is terminated in their Consciences which is daily made more plain and legible by the operation of the Spirit sealing and witnessing unto them their peace and reconciliation with God Whereas unbelievers look on God as their enemy and consequently all their life time are held in bondage through the fear of wrath A true Believer hath peace liberty and boldness towards God he looks upon all the Promises as his own inheritance interprets the Providences of God even those which Reason would construe in another sence to be Fruits of Love and not of Wrath. § 12. Now because this Declarative Sentence by Faith is like the name written in the White Stone Revel 2.17 Which no man knoweth saving he that hath it Many whom the Lord doth justifie are accounted by the world to be but Hypocrites others again are justified of men who are not justified in the sight of God the Lord therefore hath another way of justifying his people to wit In foro mundi when he shall publickly and in the hearing of the whole world pronounce that gracious sentence Come ye blessed of my Father c. Matth. 25.34 Whereunto some have referred those words of the Apostle Acts 3.19 Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. But who so pleaseth to consult with Erasmus Beza and Ludovicus de Dieu upon the place shall finde there is a great mistake in our English Translators and that no such thing was intended there by the Holy Ghost I grant that the sins of the Elect may be said to be then blotted out not that the remission of their sins shall be put off or is not compleat till the last day and till they have performed all the conditions required of them but because this gracious sentence shall be then publickly declared and shall bring forth its Eternal Effect of Life and Glory And in this sence I conceive those Scriptures may be understood which speak of our Justification as a future thing as Rom. 3.30 2.13 c. § 13. Now though we have ascribed Justification unto several times or periods yet do we not make many Justifications Declared Justification whether it be in foro Ecclesiae in foro Conscientiae or in foro mundi is not another from that in the minde of God but the same variously revealed as an Acquittance in the heart of the Creditor and in a Paper a pardon in the heart of a Prince and inrolled is one and the same this manifested and the other secret and though there are never so many Copies written forth in several hands they do not make many Acquittances or many Pardons being but the Transcripts of one Original So though God doth at sundry times and in divers manners declare his well-pleasedness towards his people yet is their Justification but one and the same which is perfect and compleat at once being his fixed and immutable will not to deal with them according to their sins but as Just and Righteous Persons By that which hath been said it doth appear in what sence we assert The Justification of Gods Elect before they believe Now what little weight there is in those Objections which are commonly brought against this Assertion will be more manifest when we have examined Mr. Woodbridges Treatise Whos 's first quarrel against us is for that as he conceives we give too little unto Faith P. 2. But as it is no disparagement to the Blood of Christ that it doth not move and incline God to love us or to will not to punish us so it is no disparagement to Faith to say That it doth not concur with the Blood of Christ in obtaining our Justification but that by apprehending the Gospel it reveals and evidenceth to us that Justification which we have in Christ the proof whereof is the task of the next Chapter wherein I doubt not but I shall be able through the help of God to put by all those wretched consequences which Mr. W. hath endeavored to father upon this Position That Faith serves to evidence to us our Justification CHAP. VIII Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Exceptions against our saying That Faith or the act of believing doth justifie no otherwise then as it reveals and evidenceth our Justification are Answered THe first Charge which he brings against this Gloss as he calls it is That it is guilty of a contradiction to the Holy Ghost It is well known sayes he that the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians sets himself on purpose to assert the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in opposition to Works The Question between him and the Jews was not Whether we are declared to be justified by Faith or Works but whether we are justified by Faith or Works in the sight of God or before God And he concludes That it is by Faith and not by Works c. Though all this be granted yet it proves no contradiction to the Holy Ghost in our Assertion We acknowledge that the Question between the Apostle and the Jews was not about the declaring of our Justification nor about the time when we are justified no nor about the condition upon which we are justified but concerning the matter of our Justification or the Righteousness whereby we are justified or by which we are accounted righteous Now the result of his dispute is That we are justified by Faith and not by Works but then the Question will be How Faith is to be taken whether sensu proprio or metonymico whether we are to understand it
of the Act or of the Object of Faith We have shewed before that the Apostle in his disputes about Justification in these fore-mentioned Epistles where he opposeth Faith to Works he takes Faith in a Tropical sense for the Object and not the Act of Faith for else there had been no ground for him to make any opposition at all between Faith and Works and in affirming That we are justified by Faith he had contradicted himself in saying That we are not justified by Works seeing Faith or the Act of Believing is a work of ours no less then love And therefore it is evident that the Apostle when he concludes That we are justified by Faith and not by Works understands by Faith the Object thereof to wit Righteousness imputed and not inherent which by way of distinction and opposition to the other he calls the Righteousness of God because it is out of us in Christ God-man The reason why the Apostle calls the Object by the name of the Act Christs Righteousness by the name of Faith besides the elegancy of the Trope is because Faith ascribes all unto Christ it being an act of self-dereliction a kinde of holy despair a denying and renouncing of all fitness and worthiness in our selves a going unto Christ looking towards him and a roulling of our selves upon his Alsufficiency So that in the Apostles sense we deny not That Faith justifieth in the sight of God Faith I say taken objectively to wit For Christ and his Righteousness it is for his Merits and Satisfaction alone that we are accounted Just and Righteous at Gods Tribunal But if Faith be taken properly for the Act of Believing we say indeed That it onely evidenceth that Justification which we have in Christ. Nor is this any contradiction to the Holy Ghost who ascribes our Justification in the sight of God to Chrâ—st alone § 2. Next he calls it A most unsound Assertion That Faith doth evidence our Justification before Faith Is the Apostles definition of Faith Heb. 11.1 Faith is the evidence of things not seen An unsound Assertion Though some do ascribe more to Faith then an Act of evidencing yet I never met with any one before that did totally deny this use thereof All the knowledge that we have of our Justification is onely by Faith seeing it cannot be discerned by Sence or Reason either we have no evidence of our Justification and consequently do live without hope or if we have it is Faith that doth evidence it to our souls Now let our Justification be when it will if Faith doth evidence it it will follow That our Justification was before that Evidencing act of Faith for actuâ— pendet ab objecto the Object is before the Act. But I will not anticipate Mr. Woodbridges Reasons § 3. If sayes he Faith doth evidence our Justification it is either improperly as an effect doth argue the cause as laughing and crying may he said to evidence reason in a Childe c. Or else properly and thus either immediately and axiomatically or remotely and syllogistically 1 Faith doth not evidence Justification improperly as the Effect doth argue the Cause I shall readily grant him that Faith doth not justifie evidentially as a mark sign or token but as a knowledge and adherence unto Christ our Justifier as that Organ or Instrument whereby we look not upon our Faith but upon Christ our Righteousness and by the same Faith do cleave unto him They that make Faith a condition of our Justification use it but as a sign or as an argument affected to prove That a person is justified seeing that where one is the other is also where there is Faith there is Justification and for this cause innumerable other signs and marks are brought in to evidence this sign which are more obscure and difficult to be known then Faith it self nay which cannot be known to be effects of Blessedness but by Faith whereby poor souls either walk in darkness live in a doubting and uncertain condition all their days or else compass themselves about with sparks of their own kindling and walk in the light of their own fire fetching their comfort from Faith and not by Faith from Christ. Though I might fairly pass by this Branch of his Dilemma it being none of my Tenent and favored more by his own then my opinion yet I shall briefly give my fence of his Reasons That Faith doth not evidence Justification as a sign § 4. His first Reason is because then Justification by Faith would not necessarily be so much as Justification in our Consciences A Christian may have Faith and yet not have the evidence that he himself is justified Many Christians have that in them which would prove them justified whiles yet their Consciences do accuse and condemn them To which I Answer 1. That Mr. W. may be pleased to consider how well this agrees with that passage of his Pag. 15. Where he alledgeth the words of the Apostle 1 John 3.20 to prove That if our hearts do condemn us God doth much more condemn us 2. I should grant him That if Faith did evidence our Justification onely as a sign or some remote effect thereof like other works of Sanctification it would be but a dark and unsatisfying evidence 3. Whereas he sayes That doubting Christians have something in them that would prove them justified either it is something that precedes Faith or something that follows Faith or else Faith it self First Nothing that precedes Faith doth prove a man justified secondly Nothing that follows Faith is so apt to prove it as Faith it self because it is the first of all Inherent Graces it is by Faith that we know our Love Patience c. to be Fruits unto God whereas some make doubting to be a sign of Faith they may as well make darkness a sign of light it being in its own nature contrary thereunto and therefore it must be proved by Faith it self 4. Though a true Christian may have a doubting accusing Conscience as doubtless there is flesh and corruption in their Consciences as well as in their other faculties and there is no sin whereunto we have more and stronger temptations then to unbelief yet wheresoever there is Faith there is some evidence of this Grace as in the least spark of fire there is light though not so much as in a flame And the least twinkling Star gives us some light though not enough to dispel the darkness or to make it day There are several degrees of Faith there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strong Faith and a weak Faith Now the least degree of Faith carries some light and evidence therewith and according to the measure of Faith is the evidence and perswasion of our Justification § 5. Secondly He urgeth If Faith did evidence Justification as an effect of it then we might as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to
deserted a Congregation in New England whereof he was Pastor to become a Parish Parson in the Old and not onely so but hath stood to maintaine that Parishes are true Churches It is like Barford in Old England is if not a purer Church yet a better Parsonage then Andover in the New We are not much beholding to New England for such Reformers 2 If we may judge of a mans principles by his practise we should then believe that he himself holds Universal Justification at least within the bounds of his own Parish for as I am informed he makes no distinction at all in this behalf I am ashamed to hear men to talk of Reformation who tread Antipodes to it especially when they have liberty to follow the dictates of their Consciences But 3 I had thought he had known that de occultis non judicat ecclesia and that Election and Justification are not the rule of admitting persons into Church Communion but their found Profession and suitable Conversation A Reprobate or unjustified person may lawfully be admitted into and an Elect person may as lawfully be excluded out of a Church I dare not say That the excommunicated person at Corinth and others under that censure were not justified The evidence we have of mens Justification is but the judgement of rational charity and not of infallibility But enough of this I shall return again to his Brother B. W. who I suppose will not own such irrational consequences § 11. The other part of his contradiction is That Faith cannot evidence Justification Syllogistically to wit By the discourse of Conscience after this or the like manner He that believeth is justified but I believe Ergo I am justified Now says Mr. W. magisterially enough I affirm that it is impossible for a man by Faith to evidence syllogistically that he is justified before Faith Though I honor him highly I cannot rest satisfied with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what Reason doth he bring for his confident affirmation 1. Because there cannot be found a medium before Faith it self Ans. Nor is it needful there should 1 It is sufficient that Faith itself is the medium as thus He that believeth was justified before Faith but I do believe Ergo. The Major is proved because his sins were laid on Christ and thereby non-imputed to him 2 To imagine any other medium before Faith is frivolous for that were to require that Faith should evidence before Faith had a being 3 Why may not Faith be a medium to evidence our Justification before Faith as well as our Election before Faith Seeing the same word which affirms That all Believers were elected before the Foundations of the World affirms also That the Elect without exception are discharged and acquitted of their sins Rom. 8.33 Shall we reason thus Our Election cannot be evidenced before Faith Ergo We were not elected before Faith Mr. Woodbridges Arguing makes as much against evidencing Election before Faith as against the evidencing of our Justification before Faith Because there is no sort of persons of whom ELECTION can be affirmed universally but onely such as do believe seeing all the world is distributed into Believers and unbelievers but ELECTION cannot be affirmed of unbelievers universally It proves indeed That neither Election nor Justification are evident to us before we believe it doth not prove That by Faith we cannot evidence syllogistically that we were both elected and justified before we did believe As for that mad Syllogism as he calls it which follows All unbelievers are justified but I am an unbeliever Ergo. It is the off-spring of his own brain hatcht on purpose to make the matter ridiculous But we must excuse the luxuriousness of his wit seeing Nullum est magnum ingenium sine mixtura insaniae His other Syllogism which he hath framed to evidence Justification by Election as thus All the Elect are justified But I am elected Ergo was framed in the same mould A meer man of clouts which he himself created to shew his valor in beating of him We do not teach men to evidence Justification by Election but both Election and Justification by their Faith proceeding from the Effect to the Cause as we needs must when the Effect is more evident then the Cause Though I like not the Argument yet by his leave the Major is so far from being utterly false that it is justified by the express Testimony of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 But this is besides the purpose That miserable circle into which he pretends the poor restless doubting soul is conjured by our Doctrine is but a vertigo and whimsie in his own Pericrany We do neither bid men evidence their Justification by their Election nor their Election by their Justification but both Election and Justification by a stedfast adherence and reliance upon Jesus Christ and from thence to reason out our particular interest in these Blessed Priviledges as we do the Being of Causes by the proper Effects which flow from them § 12. His next Argument against Faiths evidencing Justification syllogistically if it be put into the scale of an impartial Judgement will appear as light as the former It runs thus If we are said to be justified by Faith because Faith doth evidence Justification syllogistically then we may be said to be justified by Sence and Reason as well as by Faith which is absurd This Consequence indeed is very absurd for the conclusion is of Faith and so adjudged by the Schools if the Major be of Faith else this conclusion I shall rise again from the dead were not of Faith because it is inferred partly by Sence and Reason as thus All men shall rise again I am a man Ergo I shall rise again Here the Major onely is of Faith the Minor is of Sence and yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith and not of Sence So in this Syllogism He that believes is justified But I do believe Ergo I am justified Though the Assumption be an act of Sence or spiritual Experience yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith because the Major is of Faith For though in both these Deductions Sence and Reason are made use of yet they are but subfervient Instruments and not the Authors of the Conclusion § 13. Mr. W. hath added a third Argument to prove That Justification by Faith is not meerly a Justification in our Consciences which I question not will prove as unsuccessful as the rest But by the way I cannot chuse but take notice that his spirit of contradiction is somewhat allayed For hitherto he hath contended That Justification by Faith is not in any sence a Justification in Conscience now he tells us it is not meerly a Justification in Conscience and if this will satisfie him it is like we shall agree for before we have shewn that when Faith is objectively taken Justification by Faith is Justification by Christ and in the sight of God and not onely in the Conscience And
therefore his suggestion in the Minor Proposition That we interpret the phrase of Justification by Faith meerly of Justification in Conscience is false and groundless But let us weigh the force of his Argument a little more distinctly the sum of it then is this Justification by Faith is not Justification in our Consciences for then we should be concurrent Causes with God in the formal act of our Justification The formal act of pronouncing us just must be attributed unto us which the Scripture attributes unto God alone making us but passive therein Rom. 8.33 4.6 8. To which I answer That the pronouncing of us just is not the formal act of Justification but the imputing of Righteousness and the non-imputing of sin which is the act of God alone whereas the pronouncing of us just and righteous is in Scripture attributed to others besides God and yet no robbery is done to God As for instance the Minister of Christ pronounceth the Word of Grace and Forgiveness and therefore is said to remit and forgive sin Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Joh. 20.23 Is he therefore joyned with God in the formal act of Justification Yet all Protestants grant him the office of pronouncing Remission though they deny him the power of giving Real Remission which would make him arrogate that which is peculiar unto God So though we say That Faith doth declare and reveal to our Consciences the sentence of Absolution yet we do not thereby derogate from God or attribute that to Faith which belongs to God We grant that as to our Justification in the sight of God which is properly Justification we are meerly Passive we contribute nothing at all either Physically or Morally by way of Merit or Motive That God should account us righteous and not impute to us our sins This work was done without us and for us by Christ with his Father it hath no other cause but the Grace of God and the Merit of Christ. He and he alone purged and washed us from our sins in his own blood Revel 1.5 Heb 1.3 Now in regard of our Passiveness in this act of our Justification we say That Faith hath no hand at all in procuring obtaining and instating us in this Grace for if we did any thing though never so little in order to this end we were not Passive but Active Yet we say That as this gracious sentence of our Justification is revealed and terminated in our own Consciences so Faith hath an Instrumental efficacy we are therein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agents with God 2 Cor. 6.1 And the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beareth witness with our spirits Rom. 8.16 And therefore though we are no where exhorted to justifie or to make our selves righteous in the sight of God yet we are oftentimes bid to grow in Faith and to press forward to more assurance in believing our peace and reconciliation with God 2 Pet. 1.5 3.18 Rom. 5.1 § 14. This Concession of Mr. W. That a man is wholly Passive in his Justification gave occasion to the first Argument I offered to his consideration it being as I conceive a flat contradiction to the cheif scope and intendment of his Sermon which was to derive to Faith at least a Federal or Moral causality in our Justification I am sorry I should have so much cause to complain of his injurious dealing not onely in that unworthy language he is pleased to give me but in casting my Argument into another form then that wherein I proposed it In his report it runs thus If we were altogether Passive in being justified then we are justified before we believe In which form I confess it is obnoxious to more exceptions then one for besides the Grammatical part which is very harsh the Logical consequence may be justly blamed Though the consequent be true yet it is not a true consequence it is not rightly inferred from the Antecedent Though we are Passive in our Justification yet it doth not follow from thence That we were justified before we believed A man is Passive in the first act of his Conversion yet it were absurd to conclude therefore a man was converted before he had a Being or ever heard of the Gospel But the Argument as I proposed it was as followeth If we are wholly passive in our Justification then our Faith doth not concur to the obtaining of it or we are not justified by the act of Faith in the sight of God But according to you we are wholly Passive in our Justification Ergo Faith doth not concur unto our Justification or we are not justified by the act of Faith His Answer hereunto I could not very well heed by reason of my distance from him and the rudeness of some people who do go for Professors that stood about me but as I conceived it was to this effect That Faith doth necessarily concur to the Application of this Priviledge whereunto I replied But the Application of this Benefit is not Justification the one being Gods act the other ours His Answer in Print we are sure is authentick let us see therefore how well he hath now quitted himself from the guilt of this contradiction 1. He calls the Argument A childish Exception a peece of witchery and wonders it should proceed out of my mouth I must confess I cannot but wonder to hear such language from a civil man much more from a Minister and more especially from one who hath sometimes owed me more respect let the prudent judge whether there be any ground for this hideous clamor 2. He shapes some kinde of answer to the Sequel That though Faith be a formal vital act of the soul in genere Physico yet the use of it in Justification is but to qualifie us passively that we may be morally capable of being justified by God And again Faith is required on our part which though Physically it be an act yet Morally it is but a Passive condition by which we are made capable of being justified according to the Order and Constitution of God Now here 1. I shall desire the Reader to observe how much Mr. W. is beholding to a Popish Tenent opposed by all our Protestant Writers to support his cause which is That Faith goes before Justification to dispose us for it c. Bellarmine undertakes to prove that Faith doth not justifie alone because there are other things to wit fear hope love penitency a desire of the Sacraments and a purpose of amendment of life all which sayes the Jesuite doe prepare and dispose a man for Justification as well as Faith Against whom all our Protestant Divines which my little Library hath obtained do unanimously affirme That Faith doth not dispose or prepare us for Justâ—fication Now were they all bewitched as well as we who would not subscribe to this Popish Dictate 2. I shall leave it to the Reader to judge whether my Argument or his Answer doth deserve
Justification 3 From other parallel phrases in holy Scripture where we are said to be redeemed justified and saved per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera All which doe signifie That Christ and his sufferings are the true proper and meritorious cause of these benefits and so it must bee understood when wee are said to be Justified by Faith and not that Faith is but a sine qua non or meer cypher in our Justification Faith objectively taken is a proper meritorious cause of our Justification § 4. 4 I shall make use of my adversaries weapon of that very medium which Mr. W. last alledged page 8. That interpretation of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in the formall act of our Justification is not true because our Justification in respect of efficiency is wholly attributed unto them Rom. 8.33.4.6.8.3 24. The internal moving cause was his owne grace and the onely externall procuring cause is the death of Christ there is no other efficient cause besides these We can be no more said to justifie our selves then that we created our selves But to make Faith a condition morally disposing us to Justification maks us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification 1. We should not be justified freely by his grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification for a condition as Mr. Walker observes well whensoever it is performed makes the thing covenanted a due debt which the promiser is bound to give and then as he infers Justification should not be of grace but of debt contrary to the Apostle in Rom. 3. and 4. 2. If Faith were a condition morally disposing us for Justification we should then be concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in procuring our Justification for the merits of Christ are not a physical but a moral cause which obtain their effect by vertue of that Covenant which was made between him and the Father now by ascribing unto Faith a morall causall influx in our Justification we doe clearly put it in eodem genere causae with the blood of Christ which I hope Mr. W. will better consider of before he engageth too far in Mr. Baxters cause § 5. That interpretation of this phrase which makes Works going before Justification not onely not sinful but acceptable to God and preparatory to the grace of Justification without controversie is not according to the minde of the holy Ghost For as much as the Scripture frequently declares that no mans Works are acceptable to God before his person is accepted and justified the Tree must be good or else the fruit cannot be good Luke 6.43 44. Mat. 12.33 Joh. 15.5 That of Aug. is sufficiently known Opera non precedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum the old orthodox doctrine taught in these Churches here in England was that works before Justification are not pleasing unto God neither doe they make men meet i◠do not qualifie or morally dispose them to receive grace and we doubt not but they have the nature of sin I could muster up a legion of orthodox Writers to defend this Tenent that no qualification or act of ours before Justification doth prepare or dispose us for Justification Nay the Councel of Trent confesseth that none of those things which precede Justification whether it be Faith or other Works doe obtain the grace of Justification But to interpret Justification by Faith that Faith is a condition which doth qualifie us for Justification necessarily supposeth a Work or Works before Justification which have not the nature of sin but are acceptable to God and preparatory to grace viz. the grace of Justification which is most properly called Grace § 6. That interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which involves a contradiction is not to be admitted but to say Faith is a passive condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction Ergo The proposition is undeniable and the Assumption is to me as cleare To be both active and passive in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction Now that is active which is effective which contributes an efficacy whether more or lesse to the production of the effect A condition though in the Logical notion of it it hath not the least efficiency and therefore Aristotle never reckoned this sine qua non in the number of causes yet in the use of the Jurists as we are now speaking of it it is a morall efficient cause which is effective of that which is promised upon condition Chamier hath well observed That omnis conditio antecedens est effectiva he that performes the least condition imaginable for having of any benefit is active and passive in obtaining of it We will look after no other instance then that which Mr. W. hath set before us An offender against our Lawes that is saved by his Clergy or by reading his Neck-verse he is not passive but active in saving of his life he may properly be said to have saved himselfe his reading being not onely a physicall act but a morall efficient cause which makes that favourable law to take effect To say he is passive because he made not the Law nor sits as Judge on the Bench to absolve himselfe is but a shift to blinde the eyes of the simple seeing that when more causes then one concur to an effect the effect may be denominated from the lowest that which doth least is an active efficient cause nay in this case the Malefactor doth more in saving of his life then either the Law or Judge for though pro forma he acknowledgeth the grace of the State and the courtesie of the Judge unto him yet as the Welch-man that was bid to cry God blesse the King and the Judge cryed God blesse her father and mother who taught her to read intimated he was more beholding to his reading then to the courtesie of the Judge for else the Judge would have been severe enough his mercy would have deserved but little thanks I must needs tell my Old Friend Non loquitur ut Clericus We say such a man is Passive in saving his life who is not required to read or perferm any other condition but receives a pardon of meer Grace In like manner he is Passive in his Justification that doth nothing at all towards the procuring of i◠he that performs the least condition in order thereunto is not onely Physically but Morally active in obtaining this priviledge For though he did not make the Law by and according to which he is justified nor pronounce the sentence of Absolution upon himself yet he hath a subordinate or less principal efficiency in producing the effect nay a learned man whom I hope Mr. W. will not think more worthy to be derided then disputed with tells us That he that performs conditions for Justification doth more to his
with the second Adam He performing the terms of agreement between the Father and himself made the Law of Condemnation to be of no force against us Gal. 3.13 4.5 Which New Covenant and not the Conditional Promise as Mr. W. would have it is called The Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 And the Law of Righteousness Ch. 9.31 It is called a Law because it is the fixed and unalterable Sanction of the Great God or else by way of Antithesis or opposition to the Covenant of Works The Law of Righteousness it being the onely means whereby men do attain to Righteousness and are justified in the sight of God and the Law of Faith because it strips men of their own righteousness to cloath them with Christs and thereby takes from men all occasion of boasting in themselves whereas if men did attain to Righteousness by vertue of this Conditional Promise He that believes shall be saved they would have as much cause of boasting in themselves as if they had performed the Law of Works That saying of his with which he closeth this Argument is wide from truth That every man is then condemned or stands condemned in foro Dei when the Law condemns him for then all men living are condemned seeing the Law condemns or curseth every one that sins and there is none that lives without sin Either he must say Believers do not sin and then Saint John will give him the lie 1 Joh. 1.8 or else That Believers are not justified which is contrary to the Scripture last cited by himself Joh 5.24 with a thousand more In what sence the Elect Ephesians were called Children of wrath will more fitly be explained in the next Chapter § 4. In the mean time we will adde a few Reasons against the main support of this Argument That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a declared published act to wit by that Signal Conditional Promise He that believes shall be saved Which when a man hath performed the condition he may plead for his discharge Against this Notion I shall offer to the Readers serious consideration these following Arguments First If Justification be not by works then it is not by this or any other Conditional Promise which is a declared discharge onely to him that performs the condition i. e. That worketh But Justification is not by works which we have wrought but an act of the freest grace and bounty Col. 2.13 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle useth to express the forgiveness of sin ascribes it solely to the Grace of God without Works or Conditions performed by us § 5. Secondly If Justification be by that Signal Promise He that believes shall be saved then none were justified before that gracious sentence was published which was not till our Saviours Ministery in the flesh nor was there any sentence of Divine Revelation like it which the people of God could plead for their discharge from the Law from the fall of Adam until the publication of that subservient Covenant in Mount Sinai which is the tenor of the Law of Works the Lord never made any Conditional Promise which they could plead for their discharge and absolution from sin the promises to Adam Noah Abraham were not conditional but absolute Now if there were no Justification till God had made some conditional promise which men upon performing the condition might plead as their legal discharge I marvel into what Limbus Mr. W. will thrust the Fathers of the Old Testament For they that were not justified were not saved But the Scripture gives us more hope shewing that they were saved by the same grace as we are Acts 15.11 God accepting them as righteous in Jesus Christ who in respect of the vertue and efficacy of his death is called The Lamb slain from the foundations of the world Revel 13.8 For though this rich Grace were not revealed to them so clearly as unto us Eph. 3.5 1 Pet. 1.12 Yet the Effects and Benefits thereof descended upon them unto Justification of life no less then to the Faithful in the New Testament The Argument in short is this If the Fathers of the Old Testament were justified who yet had not any such declared discharge then Justification is not by a declared discharge but the Fathers of the Old Testament were justified c. Ergo. § 6. Thirdly If Justification be onely by a declared discharge then Elect Infants insensible of this Declaration and unable to plead their discharge from any such promise have no Justification I hope Mr. W. is not such a durus pater infantum as to exclude all those from Justification that die in their infancy which he must necessarily do if he makes Justification to consist in that which they are utterly uncapable of § 7. Fourthly The making Justification a declared discharge detracts from the Majesty and Soveraignty of God For as much as it ascribes to him but the office of a Notary or subordinate Minister whose work it is to declare and publish the sentence of the Court rather then of a Judge or Supream Magistrate whose Will is a Law And by this means Justification shall be opposed not to condemnation but to concealing or keeping secret § 8. Fifthly If Justification were by a Conditional Promise as a declared discharge then it would not be Gods act but our own God should not be our Justifier but we must be said to justifie our selves For a Conditional Promise doth not declare one man justified more then another but the performance of the condition So that a man should be more beholding to himself then to God for his Justification § 9. Sixthly We may argue a pari Forgiveness amongst men is not necessarily by a declared discharge Ergo Gods is not for there is the same reason for both and therefore we are bid to forgive one another as God for Christs sake hath forgiven us Eph. 4. ult i. e. heartily or from the heart as the Apostle elsewhere explains it Col. 3.17 Not in word or in tongue but in deed and in true affection Mans forgiveness is principally an act of the Heart and Minde A man forgives an injury when he layes aside all thoughts of revenge and really intends his welfare that did the same his heart is as much towards him as if he had not done it And therefore Gods forgiving of a sinner is not necessarily a declared absolution God may justifie or acquit a person though he doth not declare his reconciliation with him § 10. Mr. Woodbridge foresaw the force of this Reason and therefore hath wisely laid in this Exception against it Indeed to our private forgiveness one of another being meerly an act of Charity there is no more required then a resolution within our selves to lay aside our thoughts of revenge c. But the forgiveness of a Magistrate being an act of Authority must be by some formal act of Oblivion c. A Vote in the
men have affirmed that the person of the Spirit dwels in the Saints from those Texts John 14.16 17 26.15.26 2 Tim. 1.14 Rom. 8.11 1 Cor. 6.19.3.16 Yet none that are sober ever affirmed that the person of the Spirit dwelleth in us in such a manner as to make us one person with himselfe or to communicate his personal Properties to us so that I may say of this Argument as Maldonate of a certain Text in the Gospel hic locus facilior esset si nemo cum exposuisset it had been more plain and perspicuous if these distinctions had been omitted I see not how a man could imagine any other sence then this That God according to his gracious Covenant doth in his appointed time give or send his Spirit in the preaching of the Gospell to work Faith in all those that are ordained to life So that the Spirit is the cause and Faith the effect It matters not how he is given whether Personally or Operatively for if the Spirit which works Faith be given us by vertue of the New Covenant then some benefit of the Covenant is bestowed upon us before we beleeve Quod erat demonstrandum § 5. Though the Spirit be not given us as he saith one atome of time before we beleeve yet that weakens not the force of the Argument it is enough for my purpose that it hath a precedency in order of nature though not of time and that Faith is not before the Spirit for then Faith is not the condition of the Covenant seeing the condition goes before the thing conditioned and consequently that conditional Promise If thou beleeve c. is not the tenor of the New Covenant Either he must say 1 That the Spirit doth not work Faith and that it is a work of Nature to wit of our own Free will contrary to innumerable Scriptures Or 2 That the Spirit which works Faith is not given us by vertue of the New Covenant which was disproved by comparing Joh. 6.45 with Jer. 31.34 is contrary to those Scriptures which affirmed that all spiritual blessings are given us in and through Christ Eph. 1.3 Rom. 8.32 Or 3 that there is some other condition of the Covenant besides and before Faith as they that make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ingenuity and towardlinesse of nature the condition of conversion or 4 that there are two New Covenants one absolute and the other conditional one wherein Faith is promised without condition the other wherein all things else are promised upon condition of Faith of which more in its place § 6. Whereas he chargeth me with often abusing that received maxime Posita causa ponitur effectus Leting passe his uncivil language I say 1 that in our discourse I did not so much as mention it nor at any time else but with such cautions and limitations as Artists give understanding it of causa proxima completa and then I conceive causa posita in actu the effect must necessarily follow 2 I cannot see that it is any abuse to apply it to the death of Christ in effecting our Justification or deliverance from the curse his death and satisfaction being the adequate and immediate cause therof for when the debt is paid the oblâ—gation is no longer in force 3 Though I understood this maxime never so well it would little advantage Mr. Woodbridges cause That Faith is the condition of having the Spirit in our first conversion unlesse it would prove that the cause is produced by its immedate effect § 7. That which follows is altogether impertinent as a man saith he doth first build himselfe an house and then dwels in it so Christ by his Spirit doth build organâ—ze and prepare the Soule to be an house unto himselfe and then by the same Spirit dwels in it immediately What is this to prove that no man hath interest in the Covenant before he beleeves or that the Spirit which workes Faith is not given us before Faith We grant that Christ by his Spirit doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 build or prepare the Soule to be his house and then dwels in it vouchsafes more sensible effects of his presence but is not that organizing preparing act of the Spirit one benefit of the Covenant and is not the Spirit in that act the cause of Faith if so then wee have an interest in the Covenant before Faith for he that hath jus in re doubtlesse hath jus ad rem when wee have the benefits of the Covenant it cannot bee denied but wee have a right and title to them I find that Mr. Burges mentions this answer but saith he it is not safe to go this way for that grand promise Ezek. 36.26 Doth evidently argue the habits or internall principles of grace are before the actions of grace § 8. His next passage gives us little evidence of a heart prepared and organized by the Spirit of Christ it being false and slanderous This saith he is that which I would have spoken publickly in answer to the Argument if Mr. E. had not been beyond measure obstreperous 1 I dare say such as know Mr. Woodbridges tongue and forehead will not easily beleeve that he would be hindred from speaking his whole mind But 2 my innocency in this matter hath been cleared by persons more worthy to be beleeved then Mr. W. especially when be speaks in his owne cause 3 I shall adde that I verily beleeve he then spake near as many words I am sure as much to the purpose as this which he hath Printed I well remember some passages which are here omirted as that saying anima fabricat sibi domicilium the Soul formes the Body and then dwels in it as the soul works first efficiently that afterwards it may act formally so doth the spirit in our conversion c. 4 If he spake no more it was his owne fault for all that were present doe know that the onely answer I could get unto divers Syllogismes was I deny all But this he intended rather to vilifie me then to excuse himselfe CHAP. XVII Concerning the Covenant wherein Faith is promised and by vertue whereof it is given to us MR. W. in the next place propoundes this Question Whether Faith it selfe be not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us Which he answers negatively Faith is not given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us but by vertue of the Covenant made with Christ His Answer implies that there are two distinct Covenants of Grace one made with Christ and the other with us which will need a clearer evidence then yet he hath given us We deny not but Faith yea and all other blessings are promised in the Covenant which was made with Christ the promise of giving him a seed and that this seed shall be blessed doth include no lesse All the Promises both of this life and that which is to come are but so many explications of the grand
our Conference If Faith be given us by vertue of the Covenant made with the House of Israel then is it given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us for the House of Israel is the whole company of Gods Elect who are therefore called Spiritual Israel Rom. 9.6 But Faith or the Spirit which works Faith is promised in the Covenant made with the House of Israel Jere. 31.31 Heb. 8.19 § 6. Whereunto Mr. W. answers 1 by way of retortion If Mr. E. saith he will urge the words of this Text rigorously they would prove more then he would have I hope there is no hurt in that though the place doth prove more that doth no whit invalidate its force as to the purpose for which we alledged it but what is that which it proves more It is manifest says he that this Covenant contains a promise of sending Christ into the world to die for our sins as the Apostle proves Heb. 10.14.15 16. So that we may as well infer from hence that we are in Covenant with God before the death of the Mediator as that we are in Covenant before we believe and then his death shall serve not to obtain all or any of the blessings of the Covenant but onely as the Socinians to declare and confirm c. If he please to admit of a Reply we say 1 That he mistakes the inference that was drawn from hence The Proposition to be concluded was not That we are in Covenant before we believe but that Faith or the Spirit which works Faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us which is sufficiently secured by these Texts for if by the House of Israel be meant all the Elect as undoubtedly they are and the Spirit which works Faith is promised in the Covenant which is made with the House of Israel then the Spirit and Faith are given by vertue of the Covenant which is made with us we being in the number of Gods Elect. 2 It is not so manifest as he pretends that these Texts do contain a promise of sending Christ to die for us The promises here mentioned do express onely what benefits do accrew to us by the Death of Christ I grant that this Covenant supposeth the Death of Christ as the onely meritorious procuring means by which these benefits do flow down unto us and therefore it is said In those days or after those days meaning the days of the Son of Man when the Messiah whom God had promised should be exhibited which in Scripture are called The last days the last times and the world to come c. Though the Apostle mentions the Covenant Heb. 10.15 it is not to prove That God would send his Son to die but that being come as these believing Hebrews acknowledged though they saw not the vertues of his death as to the abolishing of other Sacrifices he hath offered up a perfect Sacrifice Verse 10 12 14. and consequently they needed no other Sacrifice to take away sin for otherwise God had not made such ample promises in reference to the times of the Messiah as you finde he hath Jere. 31. That he will remember the sins and iniquities of his people no more c. For says the Apostle when there is such a full remission there needs no more offering for sin Verse 18. § 7. 3. Though we should grant him that this Text Jere. 31. contains a promise of sending Christ what were this to the purpose to weaken our inference That Faith is given by vertue of the Covenant made with us May not God in the same Covenant promise both Christ and Faith But sayes Mr. W. it will follow then that this Covenant was made with us or that we were in Covenant with God not onely before we believe but before the death of Christ. I am so far from looking upon it as an absurdity that I shall readily own and acknowledge it as an undeniable truth That the New Covenant was made with all the Elect in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid it being the fixed and immutable Will of God concerning all those good things which in time are bestowed upon them and therefore it is called an Everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23.5 not onely a parte post but a parte ante as it shall have no end nor be changed So it had no beginning God having from all eternity immutably purposed in himself to bestow upon them all those blessings which they do receive in time yet we say there are more especially three moments or periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1 immediately upon the fall of Adam when he first published his gracious promise of saving all his Elect by the womans Seed Gen. 3.15 The first Covenant being broken and dissolved the Lord immediately published that other Covenant which cannot be broken and hereunto as hath been shewed do those Scriptures relate Tit. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.9 2 At the death of Christ because thereby all the benefits willed to us by the Everlasting Covenant were merited and procured for us the full price which was paid for them was then exhibited for which cause the New Covenant is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament which was confirmed by the death of the Testator Jesus Christ Heb. 9.17 And the Blood which he shed the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant Heb. 13.20 and the Blood of the New Testament Matth. 26.28 So that his charge of Socinianism doth not touch us for though we do not say That Christ procured the Covenant or that God should will to us â—hose mercies which are therein promised yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the Blood of Christ as our deliverance from the curse inherent holiness c. 3 The Covenant is said to be made with men when God doth confer upon men the benefits which are therein promised or at least makes them to know and understand their interest and propriety therein Thus is that to be understood Isai. 55.3 I will make an Everlasting Covenant i. e. I will fulfil my Everlasting Covenant or bestow upon you all those mercies which I have promised and which my Son hath purchased by shedding of his Blood And thus we grant That God makes his Covenant with his people when he gives them Faith when he enables them to lay hold of it and to plead it at the Throne of Grace now though in this sence God may be said to take men into Covenant when they doe beleeve yet will it not follow that the Spirit and Faith are not given by vertue of the Covenant which is made with us so that his retortion is pittifully unsuccessefull it gives not the least wound to the cause which we maintain § 8. The second branch of his Answer is That upon a most serious perusall of these Texts I finde them so contradictory to Mr. Eyres purpose
We may remember when it was not so I wish that all Orthodox Christians and especially our University Worthies who have more leisure and far greater helps for such Polemical Exercises then their Brethren abroad had more Zeal to improve this Liberty for the advantage of the Truth The Authors of most of those Errors and Blasphemies which have been lately started are but little more to be faulted then they that do profess the Truth I mean such as are indued with Gifts and Abilities who suffer them to walk abroad without check and controle seeing there is no Error whatsoever but the Scripture affords us variety of Weapons to wound and slay it We cast the blame upon Magistrates because they do suffer them nor can I excuse their connivence at any of those Evils which are contrary to the Light of Nature yet I fear the greatest share of this guilt will lie at our doors who are the Ministers of the Gospel whose office without controversie it is To contend for the Faith to convince gain-sayers and by sound Doctrine to stop their mouths who teach things which they ought not It is but a slender discharge of our Duty to cry out against Errors and Heresies and never shew and convince men what Truth and Error is such loose and general Invectives do never advantage most times they wound the sides of Truth whereas if the Trumpet gave a more certain sound and Ministers did prove those things to be Errors which they brand with this name their pains would much more succeed to the profit of their Hearers they would be better armed against such dangers Your late Resolves to emit a Declaration For giving fitting Liberty to all that fear God within this Commonwealth for the better preservation of the mutual Peace of such as fear God among themselves without imposing one upon the other and to discountenance Blasphemies damnable Heresies and Licentious Practises in Answer to the Petitions of the Congregated Churches in the Northern Counties I am perswaded have exceedingly rejoyced the hearts of all the Faithful throughout the Land Now I humbly offer it to your considerations whether it be not a necessary expedient to preserve the mutual peace of Christians straitly to prohibite under fitting penalties the giving names of obloquy or railing accusations such as the Archangel durst not bring against the Devil and the imposing of slanders upon one another I see not how any manner of good can be expected from this Practise me thinks mens Arguments might be as keen and nervous though their Language be sober beseeming Christians and civil Men. Such names they do not convince most times they harden those that are mis-led But then the mischeifs that come by it are not a few I know nothing that doth imbitter the spirits and alienate the hearts of Christians from each other so much as this and which is worse the Truths and Ways of God are not seldom nor a little clouded by this means For usually the names of the vilest Errors and Heresies are made the Badge and Livery of the choisest Truths The Discourse before you doth instance in one the title of ANTINOMIAN which was originally the character of loose and licentious Libertines i◠by some of our new Doctors appropriated to them who have most faithfully managed the Protestant Cause against the Papists and in the cheif Points which are depending between them to wit Our Justification by Christ alone without Works and Conditions performed by our selves and our full and perfect Deliverance from the Curse of the Law Though there is no true Christian but will rejoyce to suffer shame for the sake of Christ yet by these arts the Ignorant and Simple have their ears stopt and eyes shut against the Word of Life for few have so much courage as to look into that which is generally branded with an evil name So that in a short time a few nick-names shall do us more hurt then Fire and Faggot did heretofore The Lord therefore keep these purposes in your hearts till you have fulfilled them and inable you to perfect the Work which you are called to that the Truth may spred and Godliness flourish that Righteousness may be equally administred and Wickedness especially in High Places severely punished that Learning whereof there is so great use both in Church and State may be encouraged and Peace if possible be restored unto us For the effecting hereof I doubt not but you have the earnest Prayers of all the Faithful throughout the Land I can assure you of him who is Yours Honors most humble Observer W. Eyre The Fourth day of the Nineth Moneth 1653. TO My Deare Flock in the City of NEVV-SARUM unto which God and their own Choise have made me an Over-seer Loving and Beloved Brethren IT was a frequent saying in the mouth of Luther That after his death the Doctrine of Justification would be corrupted A few years last past have contributed more to the fulfilling of his Prediction then all the time that went before Can there be a greater evidence of mens Apostacy from this Article of our Faith then their branding of the Doctrine it self with a mark of Heresie Though our Adversaries are grown more subtle to distinguish yet they are as wide from the true Doctrine of Justification by Christ alone as the perverters of the Faith in Luthers daies It is not easie to number up all the wiles and methods wherewith Satan hath assaulted this Foundation-Truth he knew it was too grosse to tell men That they must be justified by Works seeing the Scriptures are so expresse against it And therefore mens wits must be set on work to find out some plausible distinctions and extenuations a little to qualifie and and sweeten this Popish leaven to take off the odium of the phrase and to rebate the edge of those Scriptures which usually are brought against it It is true say they we are not Justified by Works of Nature but we are Justified by Works of Grace and though we are not Justified by Legal or old Covenant Works yet wee are Justified by Evangelical or New Covenant Works performed by our selves And againe works though they are not Physicall Causes which no man ever affirmed yet they are morall Causes or Conditions of our Justification though they do not mer◠in a strict sense by their innate worth and dignity yet in a large sense and by vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant they may be said to merit our Justification and Salvation Or if these will not doe it the matter is dispatched if Faith may be but taken in a proper sense the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere fetches in all other works within its circumference But that delusion which is least apt to bee suspected by wel-meaning Christians is the calling Works or Inherent Holinesse by the name of Christ the successe of this bait we have seen of late in too many who have dallied so long with the notion of a Christ
Labors in the Woâ—â— of the Gospel may be more successful unto you and to all others that do partake of them Which will be the greateâ—â— joy on â—arth unto him who is Yours in the nearest Bonds W. Eyre The Third day of the Ninth Moneth 1653. TO THE Christian Reader FRIEND IF thou knowest me and how many Burdens do lie upon me I dare say thou dost not expect an Apology for the tarriance of this little peece For though considering the work thou mightest have had it much sooner yet by reason of my much sickness daily services in the Ministry and the cares of my Family which are not ordinary though I had finished it eight moneths since it was not likely thou shouldst have had it now However If any shall upbraid me as Ecchius did Melancthon when he delayed to Answer an Argument he had put unto him It is not praise-worthy sayes he if thou dost not answer it presently I shall say to him as Melancthon to the Doctor I seek not my own praise in this matter but the truth and perhaps it may succeed more to the advantage of the truth that it was delayed I lately met with a passage which fell from the Pen of a Leading Man in these times whereof I held it necessary to give thee my thoughts to remove the prejudices which probably it hath begotten against this discourse There is says the Author a very judicious Man Mr. B. Woodbridge of Newbeâ—y hath written so excellent well against this Error sâ—il Justification before the act of believing or without conditions and in so small room being but one Sermon that I would advise all private Christians to get one of them as one of the best easiest cheapest preservatives against the contagion of this part of Antinomianism It is far from me to envy the praises of Mr. Woodbridge being ready to give a more ample Testimony to his personal worth I do freely acknowledge that in natural and acquired parts for his time he is like Saul amongst the people higher by the head and shoulders then most of his Brethren However that commends not the cause he is engaged in It is not to be wondered at that Mr. B. hath given this superlative encomium to Mr. Woodbridges Sermon he knew well enough that it would rebound upon himself Mr. W. being a son of his own Faith and this notion of his but a spark from out of Mr. Baxters forge I suppose Mr. Baxters praises or dispraises are not greatly regarded by sober-minded Christians who have observed how highly he magnifies J. Goodwin with others of his notion and how slightingly he mentions Dr. Twisse and all our Protestant Divines that differ from him How excellently Mr. W. hath written of this matter will appear to the impartial Examiner of this Surveigh Learned Men have held that the best way to demolish Error is to build up Truth as to drive out Darkness is to let in Light Now M. W. though he endeavors to prove no Justification before Faith yet throughout all his Sermon he never so much as hinted how or in what sense we are justified by Faith the Explication whereof according to the sense of our Protestant Writers would have ended the matter For the Question depending between us is not so much about the time as the terms and matter of our Justification to wit How and by what means we are made Just and Righteous in the sight of God Which we affirm to be by the perfect Righteousness of Christ alone which God doth impute unto us freely without Works and Conditions performed by us though we have not the sense and comfort of it any otherwise then by Faith The Antecedency of our Justification in foro Dei before Faith is but a Corrollary from this Position and Mr. B. acknowledgeth it to be a necessary consequence from the imputation of Christs Active Obedience which hath hitherto been the unanimous Tenent of our Protestant Divines and Mr. Norton of N. E. thinks it no less then Heresie to deny it His advice unto all private Christians to buy one of these Sermons argues rather his conceit of himself then his charity to them that he dares take upon him the office of a Universal Dictator to prescribe not onely to his Kedermisterians but to all private Christians what Books they shall read Whether Mr. Woodbridges Tract may be called the best amongst none good that are written against this Truth I shall not dispute But that it is such an easie peece for all private Christians to understand I doe very much doubt though the men of Kedermister who I fear are fed but with little better food can swallow down such choakly meat as his Paradoxes and distinctions of Faith evidencing Axiomatically or Syllogistically Of Justification Impetrated and Exemplified Of our working actively and passively Of Promises in the Covenant which are not parts of the Covenant but means to bring us into Covenant c. yet unto other private Christians I dare say they are like Herring bones in the throat and not a whit more intelligible then a Lecture of Arabeck The next motive he hath his upon probably may take with many the cheapnesse of the book which he doth commend but if the price and the profit were put together I dare say the Buyer will confesse that he hath given a great too much He buyes poison too dear who hath it for nothing As for the title of Antinomianism which he bestowes upon our Doctrine it is no great slander out of Mr. Baxters mouth with whom an Antinomian and an Anti-Papist are termini convertibles Let him shew us any one Church or single person accounted Orthodox till this present age that did not hold some yea most of those Points which he cals Antinomianism and I will openly acknowledge I have done him wrong otherwise let him bee looked upon as a Slanderer and Revilâ—r of all the Protestant Churches who under a shew of friendship hath endeavored to expose them to the scorne and obloquie of their Enemies Mr. B. the better to ingage his Reader tels him his Doctrine is of a middle straine as if all the Reformed Churches had hitherto been in an extreame in this fundamentall point of our Justification It is like he thinks the Papists are much nearer to the line of truth then any of them But in earnest is Mr. Baxters Doctrine of a middle strain I am sure he gives as much unto Works and lesse unto Christ then the Papists doe He makes Works by vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant to be the meritorious causes of Justification and Salvation and in no other sence doe the Papists affirm it I must needs say I never yet met with that Papist which calls Christ a sine qua non i. e. a cause which effects nothing of our Justification But I shall desire the Reader for his better satisfaction to paralell Mr. Baxters Doctrine with these ten Positions of Bishop Gardiner
though it be never so impure and wicked yet he is justified for all if he doth believe the Promises of the Gospel So that they held the necessity of Faith such as it was they made it as our Adversaries do the condition of Justification 2. Antinomianism is such an Error as doth oppose or is contrary to the Law of God But surely this is not such it offers no manner of injury unto the Law seeing that whensoever the Elect are justified they are not justified without Righteousness and such a Righteousness as doth fully answer the Law of God in respect both of the satisfaction and obedience which it doth require We say that God cannot justifie a person without Righteousness for then he should do that himself which he forbids to us and professeth his detestation of Exod. 23.7 Isa 5.23 Deut. 25.1 Prov. 17.15 If God could have dispensed with his Law in this behalf Christ needed not to have died the end of his coming was to bring in Everlasting Righteousness Whomsoever God doth justifie they have justice one way or other for otherwise the God of Truth should call darkness light and evil good they whom he accounteth just are just and righteous But yet we say That Faith is not that Râ—ghteousness that makes them so either in whole or in part but the perfect Righteousness of Christ which is put upon them Now to say That God imputes this Righteousness unto men before they believe is no ways contrary to the Law seeing the Law prescribes not the rules of this imputation it is altogether besides the cognizance of the Law So that if it prove an Error it must be an Anti-Evangelical and not an Antinomian Error But I doubt not but I shall be able to acquit it from this as well as from that other imputation CHAP. IV. Containing some Animadversions upon Mr. Cranfords Epistle to the Reader MR. W. for the better grace of his Book hath obtained a Commendatory Epistle from Mr. Cr. wherein some things are delivered contrary to truth and most injurious to them whom Mr. W. hath made his Adversaries It s true he begins his Epistle with a deserved Commendation of the Doctrine of Justification That it exceedingly illustrates the glorious riches of Gods Free-grace and magnifies his Justice is the onely support of comfort to a wounded Conscience takes away from man the cause of boastings and is altogether above the invention and credulity of Reason Wherein I do cordially concur with him accounting it as Luther did the Sun which enlightens the Church the Paradise and Heaven of the Soul therefore it was not without cause that our first Reformers so earnestly contended for it it being as they have well observed the sum of the Gospel and of all the benefits which we have by Christ the principal point of the Doctrine of Salvation the pure knowledge whereof doth preserve the Church How much short of them in this particular is the zeal of some amongst our late Reformers who have scoffingly called it the Antinomians common place Mr. Cranfords Testimony therefore to the singular excellency of this Doctrine is so much the more welcome seeing there are so few that have it in a right esteem though as he and much more as Mr. W. hath stated it the beauty and lustre of it is not a little obscured It looseth all those praises which in Mr. Cranfords Parenthesis are ascribed unto it For 1 how doth the riches of Gods grace appear if our Justification doth depend upon terms and conditions performed by us For as Mr. Walker hath noted Whatsoever is covenanted and promised upon a condition to be performed is not absolutely free nor freely given They are not justified by Grace who are justified upon the performance of conditions 2 What support is this for a wounded Conscience to tell him that is conscious of his extream weakness and inability That God will forgive his sins if he do perform such and such conditions which he is no more able to do then to remove a mountain Mr. Calvin hath well observed Nisi fidem tremere ac vacillare volumus c. That unless we would have our faith to be always wavering and trembling it ought to rest onely upon the free promise of Grace in Jesus Christ And he gives this Reason for it Quoniam conditionalis promissio c. Because a conditional promise which sends us to our own works promiseth us life no otherwise then if it were placed in our own power Nor 3 doth this take from men the cause of boasting Boasting saith the Apostle is not excluded by works call them by what name you will either Legal or Evangelical if they are our works they give to us occasion of boasting for to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt a work or condition whensoever it is performed makes the thing covenanted a due debt which the performer may demand and the promiser is bound to give 4 It is not above the invention and credulity of Reason That God should justifie a Righteous man but that God should justifie sinners and meerly upon the account of anothers righteousness as heretofore it seemed foolishness both to Jews and Gentiles so ever since it hath been a stumbling block to the wisdom of the flesh it is such a mystery as will never contemper with the most rational principles of the natural man Hence have arisen all those jarrings and contendings against this truth in regard of its disproportion unto carnal Reason which believes no other Gospel but hoc fac vives § 2. The Doctrine of the Gospel sayes Mr. Cr. concerning the Justification of a believing sinner is plainly delivered in the Scripture But by his favor the Scripture no where calls Believers sinners nor yet makes Believers the adequate subjects of Justification It is most true That all Believers are justified and it is as false that men are Believers before they are justified An unjustified Believer and a justified Sinner are expressions palpably guilty of Self-contradiction We read in Scripture of Gods justifying the ungodly reconciling the world and enemies to himself and of his quickning them that are dead in trespasses and sins Now Believers as hath been hinted are never called ungodly or enemies to God they are no where said to be dead in trespasses and sins they have their name from their better part and from that esteem that God hath of them who beholds them holy and righteous without any spot or blemish of sin § 3. In the next place Mr. Cr. gives us in a List of all the causes which do concur unto our Justification in the enumeration whereof he will finde the Author he commends at a greater distance from him then those whom he opposeth He may if he please compare his Doctrine with Mr. Baxterâ— Notions whom Mr. W. follows at the very heels Thes. 56.26 73 c. in his
Predestination If Gods decree be absolute Nemo vigilet nemo jâ—junet nemo libidini contradicet c. The Papists say It follows That if we be justified by Faith onely then we need not do good works The Remonstrants and their followers say That if a Believer cannot fall from Grace then need he not fear to commit any sin whatsoever Nor do these Consequences flow any whit more naturally from our Tenent then they do from these Doth it follow That because all the Elect are by means of Christs death actually reconciled unto God and freed from the condemnation of the Law That therefore men may live as they list that they need not hear believe and obey the Gospel How doth this sow pillows under mens elbows or lull asleep in security more then the Doctrine of absolute Election Seeing as all men are not elected so neither are all men reconciled unto God nor can any man know That he is elected and reconciled unto God but by and thorow Faith which Faith is wrought in men by the Preaching of the Word and doth certainly produce a holy life § 7. I confess I am yet to seek of the Reason of his other Deduction That this Assertion of actual reconciliation before Faith overthrows the comfort of true Believers and destroyes the ground nature use and end of Faith Is it an uncomfortable Doctrine to tell men That we are not sharers with Christ in effecting of our peace with God and in procuring the pardon of our sins and that Christ hath finished this work before we knew it Is it not much more comfortable to poor souls that Christ hath absolutely and by himself obtained forgiveness for sinners then that he hath procured this Grâ—â—e but conditionally upon condition we perform such and such 〈◊〉 for which we have no strength or ability in our selves Whence have the Saints drawn all their comfort Surely not from Faith or any other work of theirs but by Faith from Christ and from the perfection and al-sufficiency of his Sacrifice Not onely the Protestants but the Papists themselves though in the Schools they contend for the dignity and congruity of works that they are Moral causes or necessary conditions of Justification and Salvation yet on their death beds they utterly renounce them they exhort men in distress of Conscience to roul themselves wholly upon Jesus Christ. In a form prescribed for visiting of the sick the Priest or Minister was enjoyned to put these Questions to the sick party Dost thou believe to come to glory not by thy own merits but by the vertue and merit of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ And dost thou believe That our Lord Jesus Christ did die for our salvation and that none can be saved by his own merits or by any other means but by the merit of his passion Whereunto when the sick person answered affirmatively I do believe it the Priest is bid to exhort him in this wise Go to therefore as long as thy soul remaineth in thee place thy whole confidence in his death onely have confidence in no other thing commit thy self wholly to his death with this alone cover thy self wholly intermingle thy self wholly wrap thy whole self in his death c. Dangerous saith Bernard is the habitation of those that trust in their own works And in another place Ubi tuta c. What safe â—est or security can the weak soul finde but in the wounds of his Saviour As he is mighty to save so dwell I there with most safety Parisiensis in his Book of Divine Rhetorick Thou must beware saith he in thy striving with God that thou dost not build upon a weak foundation which he doth that trusts in his own works Gerson often inculcates this That before the tribunal of God we must onely plead the merits of Christ Bishop Gardner though he would not have this gap to be opened to the people yet he acknowledged it to be the most comfortable Doctrine to such as were in his condition he being then on his death bed Which is the more to be observed because in his life time he had stickled so much for our Adversaries Conditional Justification Bellarmine himself when he had written divers Books for Justification by Inherent Righteousness in the end concludes That for fear of vain-glory and by reason of the uncertainty of our own works Tutissimum est c. It is the safest way to place all our trust in the Mercy of God and of Jesus Christ so that we may say as Moses Their rock is not as our rock our Enemies themselves being Judges Deut. 32.31 § 8. Mr. Cr. hath not the least reason to charge us with destroying the Ground of Faith for the Ground of Faith is either Fundamentum Quod or Fundamentum Quo. Material and Personal or else Doctrinal and Ministerial We say with all true Christians That the onely Material or Personal Foundation whereupon a poor soul can build securely for Life and Justification is Jesus Christ Now the Doctrinal Foundation whereby our Faith is united to the former we affirm with Calvin and many more that it is Gratuita misericordiae in Christo promissio The free promise of Mercy in opposition to those Conditional Promises which send men partly to Christ and partly to their own works and therefore our Adversaries are much more obnoxious to this Censure of Destroying the Ground of Faith who allow it no other support then Conditional Promises whereby mens hope and confidence is made to lean more upon themselves then it doth on Christ much more upon their own works then it doth upon his Righteousness The forementioned Author hath well observed That if our Faith doth relie never so little upon our own works it cannot possibly stand fast that soul will never attain to any setled assurance of his Salvation that builds his Faith upon such a sandy foundation § 9. The nature of Faith receives not the least prejudice by our Doctrine for if we define it as most of our old Protestant Divines have done Certa indubitata persuasio A firm and certain perswasion of the favor of God and the pardon of our sins it confirms our Tenent for mens sins must be pardoned before they can believe it or else of necessity they must believe a lie All men know that the object doth precede the act unless it be when the act gives a being to the object Or if we make it to be fiducia the trust or reliance of the soul upon Jesus Christ it receives no small encouragement from this consideration That Christ hath finished whatsoever was necessary by Divine appointment for the Justification of sinners not expecting the least condition to be performed by us for that end Our Faith is never so impregnable as when it rests entirely upon Jesus Christ. And as for the ends and uses of Faith which are cheifly to give us boldness and
a Stone or other Creatures which are not capable of sinning but Privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of Righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentiâ The difference between these is as great as between a mans will not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted and his will not to require any thing of one that never did nor will ow him any thing 2 This non-imputation of sin is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being in like manner the imputation of Righteousness is actual though the Righteousness to be imputed is not actual Man whose thoughts arise de novo doth non-impute usually after the commission of a fault but for God who is without any shadow of change and turning so to do is absolutely impossible for as much as there cannot arise any new will or new thought in the heart of God 3 This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable Will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it and he in like manner imputing Righteousness none can hinder it Neither doth this render the death of Christ useless which is necessary by the Ordinance of God as a meritorious cause of all the effects of this Justification even as the eternal Love of God is compleat in it self but yet is Christ the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Eph. 1.3 4. And therefore we say § 7. 2. That if Justification be taken as most commonly it proposition 2 is not for the Will of God but for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Though there be no cause of the former out of God himself for the merits of Christ do not move God to will not to punish or impute sin unto us yet is Christ the meritorious cause of the latter It is from the vertue of his Sacrifice that the obligation of the Law is made void and the punishments therein threatned do not fall upon us By his death he obtained in behalf of all the Elect not a remote possible or conditional reconciliation but an actual absolute and immediate reconciliation as shall be proved anon And in this respect all that were given unto Christ by the Father may be said to be justified at his death not onely virtually but formally for the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor Their discharge from the Law was not to be sub termino or in Diem but present and immediate it being impossible that a debt should be discharged and due at the same time We acknowledge That the effects of this discharge from the Law may be said to be sub termino or in Diem As for instance from that full satisfaction and perfect Righteousness which Christ hath performed there arise these two things One is The non-execution of the desert of sin which we continually commit upon us That whereas the Reprobate sin and upon their sin the curse with all the evils included in it is upon them The Elect likewise sinning yet for Christs sake the curse or evil of suffering is not inflicted upon them which non-punishing quoad effectum is forgiving and not imputing sin And in this sense God is frequently said to forgive when he doth not inflict punishment and in this sense also he is said often to forgive The other is The imputation of Righteousness in the effects of it whereby the effects of a true and perfect Righteousness come upon the people of God to wit All good things both for this life and that which is to come yea those things which seem to be evil and hurtful as their falls and afflictions are ordered by the over-ruling hand of a wise and powerful Providence to work together for good unto them These effects are immediate in respect of causality though not of time for though God doth not presently bestow them but as he sees fit both for his own glory and for their good yet do they immediately slow from the merit of Christ in regard there is no other meritorious cause that intervenes and concurs therewith in procuring of them Notwithstanding we say That our discharge from the Law must needs be immediate and present with the price or satisfaction that was paid for it in regard That it implies a contradiction a debt should be paid and discharged and yet justly chargable But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter § 8. 3. Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution proposition 3 and forgiveness And thus God is said to justifie men when he reveals and makes known to them his Grace and Kindness within himself And in this sense do most of our Divines take Justification defining it The declared sence of absolution and not improperly For in Scripture phrase as was noted before things are then said to be when they are declared and manifested the declaring of things is expressed in such wise as if it made them to be whereof many instances might be given a very plain one there is Gen. 41.13 Pharaohs cheif Butler speaking of Josephs interpretation Me says he he restored and him i. e. the Baker he hanged whereas he did but declare these successes unto them So God is said to justifie his people when he manifests and reveals to them that mercy and forgiveness which before was hidden in his own heart to wit that he doth not impute their sins but contrariwise doth impute Righteousness unto them Now the Lord at sundry times and divers ways hath and doth declare and manifest this precious Grace unto his people 1 More Generally towards all his Elect and 2 more Particularly to individuals or numerical persons The former is done 1 in the Word of God and 2 in his Works and Actions § 9. First God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to his people in his Word The Gospel or New Covevant being an absolute promise as we shall shew anon may be fitly termed a Declarative Sentence of Absolution unto all the Elect to whom alone it doth belong the publication of the New Covenant is their Justification For which cause Maccovius makes Justification to Commence from the first promise which was pronounced before the curse So that if Adam had not been a publick person including both the Elect and Reprobate there had been no curse at all pronounced save onely upon the Serpent or Satan in reference to this promise it was that the Apostle saith The Grace of God 2 Tim. 1.9 and eternal life Tit. 1.2 was given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie eternity as our Translators carry it but the beginning of time it is of the same latitude with 〈◊〉
of the Law and by the just judgement of God proceeding against them according to the tenor of the first Covenant So that God need not go about to entangle men who were before fast bound in the shackles of sin and misery the Law condemned them sufficiently though their contempt of the Gospel will aggravate their condemnation Our Saviour had no intent at all to shew the state of the Elect before believing but the certain and inevitable misery of them that believe not by reason of the sentence of the Law which had passed upon them § 4. 2 His next Allegation is as impertinent as this Verse 36. of the same Chapter He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him It is evident that our Saviour speaks there of a final unbeliever and not of an Elect person before believing the phrase of the abiding of Gods wrath is applicable to none but unto Reprobates who do perish for ever And to say that the place hints there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing is but an attempt to suborn the Spirit to serve our turn § 5. 3 That which seemes to speak most fully to his cause is Ephes. 2.3 where the Apostle tells the Ephesians whom God had chosen to Eternal life Chap. 1.4 That they were by nature the children of wrath even as others To which I answer 1 That the Text doth not say that God did condemn them or that they were under Condemnation before Conversion 2 The Emphasis of this Text I conceive lies in this clause by nature So then the Apostles meaning is That by nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam from whom by natural propagation they descended They were children of wrath they could expect nothing but wrath and fiery indignation from God Yet this hindered not but that by Grace they might be the Children of his Love for so all the Elect are whilest they are in their blood and pollution Ezek. 16.4 8. The Lord calls them his Sons and Children before Conversion Isai. 43.6 53.11 8.18 Heb. 2.9 For it is not any Inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his Children Ephes. 1.5 Rom. 8.29 John 17.6 Believers considered in themselves and as they come from the loyns of Adam are sinful and cursed Creatures as vile and wretched as the Devil himself though in Christ they behold themselves made righteous and blessed It is granted That Elect Infants have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them though they know it not and I see no reason that can be given why it should not be imputed to the rest of the Elect before Conversion § 6. Although the Elect are freed from wrath and condemnation yet in some sence they may be said to be under it in regard that the Law doth terrifie and affright their consciences Rom. 4.15 In which respect it is called A ministration of wrath and of death 2 Cor. 3.7 9. The wrath of God hath a threefold acception in the Scripture 1. It signifies the most just and immutable Will of God to deal with a person or persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins shall deserve And in this sence none but Reprobates are under wrath who for this cause are said to be hated of God 2 It notes the threatnings and comminations of the Law Rom. 1.18 Psal. 6.1 Hos. 11.9 Jonas 3.9 c. 3 It notes the execution of those threatnings or the punishments threatned Ephes. 5.6 Luke 21.23 Matth. 3.7 Now in the first and third sence the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath God never intended to deal with them according to the tenor of the Law nor doth he inflict upon them the least evil upon that account Christ having freed and delivered them from the Curse But as wrath is taken in the second sense for the comminations and threatnings of the Law so they are under wrath till they are able to plead their discharge and release by the Gospel The threatnings of the Law do seize upon and arrest their Consciences no less then others and therefore the Law is compared to a rigid School-Master which never ceaseth to whip and lash them until they flye unto Christ. For though he hath freed them from the Curse yet the Lord sees it fit they should for a while be held under the Pedagogy and Ministration of the Law that they may learn to prize the Redemption which they have by Christ Gal. 3.22 The Lord when he published the Law in Sinai as the Apostle observes Gal. 3.17 Did not repent him of his promise made Typically with Abraham and his Seed but really with Christ and the Elect in him But sayes he the Law was added because of transgression i. e. To discover their sinfulness and misery by nature and to render the Grace of the promise more desirable Vers. 22. As the Saints in the Old Testament were Heirs of the Promise had a real and actual Interest in all the Blessings of the New Covenant whilest their Consciences were whipped and scourged by this merciless School-master so all the rest of the Elect are partakers of the same Grace of Life though the Law doth terrifie and condemn them The threatnings of the Law do not shew what is the state of a person towards God or how God doth account of him but what he is by nature and what he hath deserved should be inflicted upon him which a man cannot chuse but expect and fear till his Conscience be secured by better promises So that I shall not be afraid to say That the Consciences of the Elect before Faith are under wrath and not their Persons and though their Consciences do condemn them yet God doth not But against this Mr. W. hath sundry Exceptions § 7. The condemnation they are under is the condemnation exception 1 of the Law which pronounceth all men guilty not onely in their own conscience but before God Rom. 3.19 Answ. That the voice or sentence of the Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are guilty and damnable in themselves if God should deal with them by the Law which is the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3.19 20. That all the world might become guilty before God So indeed are all men considered according to what is due by the Law Psal. 143.2 But the Elect as considered in the Grace and forgiveness of God and the perfect satisfaction of Jesus Christ are discharged from this rigorous Court their cause is judged at another Bar. § 8. The condemnation of an unbelievers conscience is exception 2 either true or false if true then it is according to the judgement of God and speaks as the thing is and so God condemns as well as the conscience c. Answ. The testimony of an unbelievers conscience 〈◊〉 true so far as it agrees with the written word if it witnesseth to a
The ground whereon he builds these Assertions is a very sandy foundation to wit That the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of something equivalent and therefore it doth not deliver us ipso facto but according to the compact and agreement between the Father and him I answer 1 Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or tantidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction But 2 Mr. W. might have thought we would expect a better proof then his bare word That the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem seeing the Holy Ghost shews First That Christ was held in the same obligation which we were under He was made under the Law not an other but the very same that we were held in Gal. 4.3 4. Ergo he paid the same debt that we did ow. Secondly That the Curse or punishment which we deserved was inflicted upon him Gal. 3.13 The whole wages or curse that is due to sin is Death and this Christ under-went for us Heb. 2.9 14. Isai. 53.4 5. What is it to die or to bear chastisement for another but to undergo that death which the other should have undergone If it be objected That the death which we deserved is Eternal such as the damned endure our Divines have answered long ago That Christs death was such in pondere though not in specie in potentia though not in actu The dignity of his person raised the price of his temporary sufferings to an equipollency with the other Mr. Owen says well That there is a sameness in Christs sufferings with that in the obligation in respect of Essence and equivalency in respect of the Adjuncts or Attendencies Thirdly The laying of our sins upon Christ Isai. 53.6 subjected him to the same punishment which our sins deserved Fourthly If God would have dispenced with the idem in the first obligation Christ need not have died for if the justice of God would have been satisfied with less then that penalty threatned in the Law he might as well have dispenced with the whole So then his inference That the death of Christ doth not deliver us ipso facto being destitute of this support will fall to the ground of its own accord § 14. M. W. grants That if the debtor himself do bring unto the creditor that which he ows him it presently dischargeth him but the payment of a Surety doth not And why not Amongst men there is no difference so the debt be paid it matters not whether it be by the Principal or his Surety the obligation is voide in respect of both The case is the very same between Christ and us Secondly This Exception makes the payment of Christ less efficacious for the discharge of our debt then if it had been made by us whereas it is infinitely more acceptable to God then the most perfect righteousness performed by us But sayes he the payment of a Surety is refusable Not after that he is admitted by the creditor and taken into Bond with or for the principal debtor It is true God might have refused to be satisfied for our debt by a Surety but seeing he ordained his Son to be our Surety and entered into Covenant with him from everlasting to accept his payment on our behalf the debt which he hath fully satisfied cannot be charged again either upon the Party or Surety without manifest injustice But the Father and the Son have agreed between themselves that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe Shew us this agreement and we will yeeld the cause As for the Scriptures which he hath mentioned they speak of no such thing John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me That every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life This Text and others like it do onely shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe The other Text Gal. 5.2 4. is palpably abused to serve his turn The Apostle doth not say Without Faith Christ shall profit us nothing but if we joyn any thing with Christ as necessary to attain Salvation we are not Believers or true Christians our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing and the reason hereof is because these two principles cannot be mixed A mans righteousness before God is either all by Works or all by Christ and therefore whosoever attributes any part thereof to Works he wholly renounceth Christ. At the sixth Verse he attributes that to Faith which he denies unto other Works In Christ Jesus saith he neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but Faith which worketh by love But as the Godly learned have well observed the intent of the Apostle here was not to shew what it is that doth justifie but what are the Exercises of Divine Worship in which Christians should be conversant He doth not say That Faith working by love is available to us before God or in the sight of God but in Christ i. e. In the Church or Kingdom of Christ which consists in Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost though neither Faith nor Love are available to justifie us yet they are available i. e. Acceptable to God as acts or duties of Spiritual Obedience they are the onely acceptable service which we can perform to God The last place he hath mentioned is as little to the purpose as the rest 1 Joh. 5.11 He that hath not the Son hath not life True he doth not say That all who have not Faith except final unbelievers have not the Son or any benefit by him § 15. But says Mr. W. if our Adversaries could prove That it was either the Will of God in giving his Son or the Will of Christ in giving himself to the death that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part it were something to the purpose but till this be done which indeed can never be done they were as good say nothing Had not prejudice cast a mist before his eyes the Scriptures which have been brought already would be proof sufficient What clearer Testimony can be desired of the Will of God and of Christ in this point then those Sacred Oracles which shew us First That Christ by the Will of God gave himself a Ransom and Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor unto God in behalf of all the Elect Joh. 6.27 Heb. 5.10 10.9 10. Secondly That this Ransom was alone and by it self a full adequate and perfect satisfaction to Divine Justice for all their sins Heb. 1.3 10.10 12 14. 1 Joh. 1.7 Thirdly That God accepted
of sins according to the riches of his grace not according to any condition performed by us he having obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9.12 And 2 Cor. 5.18 19. a place which we have often mentioned the Apostle shewes that Christ by his death made such a reconciliation for us as that God thereupon did not impute our sins unto us which was long before any condition could be performed by us Elsewhere That Christ by himselfe purged and expiated our sins Heb. 1.3 and afterwards set downe as having finished that worke chap. 10·12 Now sin that is fully purged and expiated is not imputable to the sinner The same Apostle addes that Christ by his sacrifice hath for ever perfected all them for whom it was offered Heb. 10.14 And in another place that he hath made them compleat as to the forgivenesse of their sins Col. 2.10 13 14. In Rom. 8.33 34. He argues from the death of Christ to the non-imputation of our sins Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth it is Christ â—hat dyed whereas notwithstanding sin would have been chargeable upon them and they condemnable if the death of Christ had not procured their discharge without the intervention of any condition performed by them CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Replyes to the second Objection as he cals it concerning our being Justified in Christ as a common person are examined THe Argument was proposed by me at the time of our Conference in this manner They that were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved were Justified before they beleeved But many were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved Ergo Mr. W. denyed both Propositions The major I proved in this wise If Christ was justified before many â—hat are in him doe beleeve then they that are in him were â—â—stified before they beleeved But Christ was justified before many that are in Christ do beleeve Ergo. His answer hereunto as I remember was I deny all And therefore the Assumption was confirmed from Isa. 50.8 9. in this manner Christ was justified at his resurrection but that happened before many of them who are in Christ as a common person doe beleeve Ergo That Christ was justified at his resurrection is clear from this Text He is near that justifieth me c. Which words I said were uttered by the Prophet in the person of our Saviour in the time of his greatest humiliation who comforted himselfe with this that the Lord would shortly justifie him which was to be done at his Resurrection when the Lord publickly declared to all the world that he was acquitted and discharged from all those sins which were laid upon him and which he as a Surety undertook to satisfie The sequel of the major was also proved by this Enthymem The acts of a common person doe belong unto them whom he represents whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such is to be attributed to them in whose stead he stands and therefore if Christ were justified all that were in him were justified also For seeing that he was not justified from his own but from the sins of others all they whom he represents were justified in his Justification Whereunto hee replyed That Christ was not justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant which did lead us to that discourse of the New Covenant which is afterwards mentioned of which in its place § 2. We shall now take a view of his Replyes to this Argument which we find in his printed copy And 1. he distinguisheth of a threefold Justification 1 Purposed 2 Purchased and 3 Exemplified all which are before Faith So then by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith Which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed It may be he will say as Arminius doth that neither of these were actuall Justification which were a poor put off for as Dr. Twisse observes Omnis Justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de Justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of Justification simply there is no man but understands it of actuall Justification And first That which he cals Justification purposed in the Decree of God is reall and actuall Justification for if Justification be Gods will not to punish or to deal with his Elect according to their sins as both the Psalmist and Apostle do define it then when Gods Will was in actual being their Justification was actual It is absurd to say That God did decree or purpose to will any thing whatsoever his Will being his Essence which admits no cause either within or without God 2 We have shewn before that Justification being taken for the effect of Gods Will to wit our discharge from the Obligation of the Law it was actually because solely and absolutely obtained by the death of Christ there being no other cause out of God which concurs to the producing of this effect § 3. The third Branch of his distinction Justification exemplified is terminus redundans a member that may well be spared for 1 there is not the least hint thereof in Holy Writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or pattern of our Justification For though he is proposed to us as an example in acts of Moral Obedience yet in his works of Mediation he was not so in these he was not an exemplary but a meritorious procuring cause an example is proposed to be imitated and therefore we are frequently exhorted to imitate our Saviour in works of Sanctification but we are no where bid to imitate him in our Justification or in justifying our selves It was needless he should be a pattern of our Justification for this pattern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not unto God because he needs no pattern or example to guide or direct him 2 He that payes our debts to the utmost farthing and thereupon receives a discharge is more then a pattern of our release Our real discharge is in his as our real debt was upon him And therefore his Grand-father Parker said well That Christs Resurrection was the Actual Justâ—fication both of him and us 3 If Christ were onely a pattern and example of our Justification then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ were but a pattern of our Justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed and therefore his Justification must be from his own sins or else the example and counterpart do not agree 4 This expression intimates that as Christ was justified by performing the conditions required of him so we
are justified by performing the conditions required of us which in effect makes men their own Saviours as before 5 He recedes very far both from the meaning and expressions of all our Orthodox Writers who do constantly call our Saviour a common person but never that I finde the exemplary cause of our Justification I shall onely refer the Reader to what his Grand-father Parker hath written of this matter who hath copiously and learnedly proved both from Scripture and the Fathers That Christ no less then the first Adam was made a common person by the Ordination of God and his own voluntary undertaking who took our sins upon him as if they had been his own and for the same made full satisfaction to Divine Justice and consequently received as full a discharge in our behalf 6 This expression of his savors rankly both of Pelagianism and Socinianism The Pelagians as they made the first Adam a meer pattern and example in communicating sin to his posterity so they made the second Adam but the pattern and example of our reconciliation Those words 2 Cor. 5.18 Who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ they expounded by his Doctrine and by his Example i. e. By our obedience to his Doctrine and by imitatâ—ng his example The Socinians do speak the same Language Christus ideo servator noster dicitur quod salutis viam nobis annunciavit quod salutis viam nobis confirmavit miraculorum patratione sanguinis effusione resurrectione à mortuis quod vitae exemplo viam salutis nobis ostendit Christ is therefore called a Saviour because by his Life and Doctrine he hath shewed us the way of Salvation and by his Miracles and Sufferings hath confirmed the same I am sorry to hear the Language of Ashdod from the mouth of a Protestant Minister § 4. The excuse which he gives for calling our Saviour the exemplary cause of our Justification rather then a common person is both fallacious and impertinent I use saith he the term of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents as the Parliament of the Commonwealth 1. It is fallacious dealing under pretence of giving a more significant term to leave out that wherein the force of the Argument lay He seems to intimate that the phrases are of equal latitude that an exemplary cause doth express as much as a common person which is cleerly false for the act of the Exemplar is not the act of the Imitator as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents which in Law is accounted as if it had been done by them Parents and Superiors are examples to their Children and Inferiors they are not common persons as Adam was to all his posterity In whose loyns saith the Apostle we all sinned and in this respect he is made a figure of Christ Rom. 5.14 Whose Righteousness is accounted unto them for whom he died as Adams sin was accounted unto us when as yet we were not 2. It is impertinent for though Christ be not the effect of them whom he represents yet that hinders not but that his discharge was theirs no less then if he had been chosen by them I can see no reason why the act of God constituting and appointing his Son to be the Head Surety and Common Person to all his Elect should not be as effectual for the communication of his benefits to them as their own choice and election We did not chuse Adam to be our common person and yet his sin was imputed to us so though we did not chuse the Lord Jesus to stand in our stead that is no reason why his Righteousness and Satisfaction should not be accounted ours § 5. The instances he hath brought from our Personal Resurrection and Inherent Sanctification to render this Argument absurd have not the least force to conclude against the efficacy of Christs Satisfaction for our immediate discharge from sin and wrath It doth not follow that because we did not personally rise with Christ and were not inherently sanctified in his Sanctification Ergo. We had not in his Resurrection an actual discharge from the guilt of sin there is not the like reason for these For to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt or satisfaction to the Law of God but our personal resurrection necessarily supposeth both our life and death Again our Inherent Sanctification cannot be without our personal existence and the use of those means which God hath appointed for that end but our Justification is wrought without us and for us Though Christ hath fully merited our Sanctification and Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be crucified with him and to be risen with Christ as well as our Justification yet it is not necessary that these benefits should be communicated to us at the same time and in the same manner It is no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Resurrection though we are not risen as to say Christ hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for as hath been shewn to say a debt is discharged and yet that it is justly chargable implies a contradiction Let the Reader judge whether the Assertion that follows be not much more confident then solid No man living can shew any reason of difference as if he were master of as much Reason as all men living why we may not as justly infer that our Resurrection is passed already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justication is passed before we believe because we are justified in Christ. Enough hath been said to evict the disproportion of these consequences § 6. 2. His next distinction is That Justification is either Causal and Virtual or Actual and Formal We were saith he causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Our Protestant Divines do generally place the formale of Justification in the non-imputation of sin Now if our sins were formally imputed unto Christ even to a full Satisfaction they could not formally be imputed unto us also unless a debt discharged by a Surety can be justly reckoned unto him that did first contract it It is true a debt may be imputed both to Principal and Surety before it be discharged but after to neither It is granted by all Orthodox Writers That our Saviour by giving himself to death made full satisfaction to the utmost farthing for all the sins or debts of Gods Elect. Now I say the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor unless we speak of an outward formality such as is by an Acquittance which serves but either against the unfaithfulness of the creditor who otherwise would deny the payment or else against the ignorance of the debtor who being not at the payment might still look upon himself as a debtor and lyable
Faction are but ridiculous termes yet the things themselves are reall evils the one being an offence against Civill and the other against Ecclesiasticall peace If this Author had shewn wherein I had offended against either of them I doubt not but I should have cleared my selfe at a just Tribunal For 1. I have ever been so far from factious Combinations or attempting any thing against the Civil Peace that as I verily beleeve it hath not been the least cause of my troubles that I have alwayes prayed for and pressed subjection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the â—owers in being had others of my calling done the like the disaffections of the people against the present Government had not been so great as yet they are in these parts 2. As for Schisme I know no ground that he hath to charge me with it for Schisme cannot be but where communion is or ought to be held now to my best remembrance I never refused to hold Christian comunimon with any person or persons with whom by the Rules of Christ I conceived I ought It is true we receive not all within that Parochial circuit wherein we live unto communion in Church Priviledges because either they refuse to make Profession of their Faith and to declare their subjection to the Ordinances of Jesus Christ and so they separate from us and not we from them or else they are such as in their practises do contradict the profession which they seem to make like them Tit. 1.16 And as for Members of other Churches we are ready to give them the right hand of fellowship unlesse the person or the Church to which he belongs lyes under the guilt of any publick scandal If he doth accuse me of Schâ—sm because I have refrained going to some Lectures that are preached in this City I doubt not but the wise will be satisfied with a just Apology I doe not conceive that Christians are bound to frequent every Lecture that is preached near them the obligation to this Duty must needs be determined by Christian prudence and we ought to follow that which we conceive hath the greatest tendency to Edification Now I confesse I have rather chosen to deprive my selfe of that benefit which sometime I might injoy then to wound my Conscience by keeping of silence when I hear the Truths and Servants of God declaimed against Dr. Jackson a man large enough in the point of communion grants that there is just cause to separate from the communion of a visible Church our practise doth not amount so high when we are urged or constrained to professe or beleive some points of Doctrine or to adventure upon some Practises which are contrary to the Rule of Faith or Love of God and in case we are utterly deprived of freedome of Conscience in professing what we inwardly beleeve for which he cites 1 Cor. 7.23 Yee are bought with a price be yee not Servants of men For sayes he although we were perswaded that we might communicate with such a Church without evident danger of damnation yet in as much as we cannot communicate with it upon any better termes then Servants and Bondslaves doe with their Masters we are bound in Conscience and religious discretion when lawfull occasions or opportunities are offered to use our Liberty and seek to our Freedom rather then to live in bondage Let them allow us that liberty which we offer to them to discusse and examine the Doctrines which they do deliver and if they shall be found erroneous to professe against them I shall not often decline such opportunities § 10. But says Mr. W. the contending about this matter will harden and discomfort more soules in an houre then the opinion it selfe will doe good to while the world stands 1. It seems he is of Curcaelleus his mind that the matter in question is of so small concernment that it ought not to breed a controversie I marvel then he should offer himselfe a Champion on either part especially in a place where he had so little to doe and where his humility might suppose there were others as able as himselfe to defend the notion which he stickles for No man will imagine that he ingaged in this controversie upon conscientious principles if he judgeth the Point in question to be of little moment For my part I cannot looke upon that as such a trifle which doth so nearly concern the glory of Gods Grace the vertue and efficacy of Christs Blood upon which alone poor Souls can with confidence and security build their hopes of Eternall life 2. I have shewed before that the Doctrine it selfe is guiltlesse both of hardning and discomforting the soules of men and if these effects doe insue the pressing of it in a Christian way they are accidental and consequently ought not to be charged upon the Tenent I know none that are discomforted by these Debates but such as the Apostle speaks of Who are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth For having pinned their Faith on the sleeves of others they are jealous of their credit least they should be thought to have builded on a sandy foundation CHAP. XVI Of Mr. Woodbridges Answer to the third Objection which he hath framed concerning our being in Covenant with God before beleiving THis last he scoffingly cals the great Argument which as he hath proposed it was none of mine We fell upon our discourse of the Covenant upon his saying that Christ was not justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant whereunto I replyed If the New Covenant were made with Christ then Christ was justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant But the New Covenant was made with Christ Ergo. He denyed the Assumption But by the way let me give the Reader the Reason of the Sequel which is as followeth The New Covenant containes all the Promises which God hath made to the Head and the Members both to Christ Personal and to Christ Mystical the same Covenant is conditional to him and absolute to us a Covenant of Works to him but a Covenant of Grace to us Now if it be one and the same Covenant by which Christ and we are Justified though in a far different manner scil he by Works and we by Grace he by his own Righteousnesse and we by his then his Justification was by vertue of the New Covenant that we are justified by We read but of one Covenant that was made with Christ by and according unto which he was justified when he had paid the debt which he had undertaken To confirme the Assumption That the New Covenant was made with Christ I alleadged 1 the Judgement of the late Assembly who in their larger Catechisme have laid down this Proposition in terminis The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam and in him with all the Elect as his seed First he denied the Allegation though I beleeve at
1 he blames the Proposition For sayes he though it were supposed that we are in Covenant before Faith yet it will not follow That we are justified His Reason is Because the blessings of the Covenant have an order and dependance one upon another and are enjoyed successively one after another But by his favor the Sequel is not invalidated by this Reason for though a man be not sanctified and glorified before Faith yet if he be in Covenant with God i. e. One of the Elect to whom the Grace of the New Covenant appertains he is certainly justified For 1 God from all eternity did will not to punish his Elect ones which as hath been shewn is real Justification it being forgiveness in the heart of God Or 2 taking it for an effect of his Will Justification is the first benefit that doth accrew to us by the death of Christ. God hath promised from thence forth to remember the sins of his people no more Isa. 43.25 54.9 and in Ezek. 36.25 He first promiseth to cleanse us from all our filthiness which must be meant of our Justification for by Sanctification our inherent filthiness is not perfectly cleansed in this life and then to give us a new heart And Chap. 16. he first sayes unto the Soul Live which is the sentence of Justification and then he adorns it with the precious gifts of his holy Spirit It is sufficiently known That the generality of our Protestant Divines in comparing the blessings of the Covenant have given the precedency to Justification some have ascribed to it a priority of time but all of Nature before the rest Perperà m absurde prorsus inter effecta Sanctificationis numeratur Justificatio quae illam natura praecedit c. Justification sayes Tilenus is most absurdly made an effect or consequent of Sanctification which in nature doth go before it A man cannot be sanctified until he is first justified for the tree must be good before it can bring forth good fruit Bishop Downham accounts it a gross error to say That Sanctification goes before Justification For sayes he Sanctification is the end and fruit c. So that if they have right to any benefit of the Covenant before Faith it must be to Justification for Faith is a part of Sanctification and the same thing cannot be before it self § 3. 2 He denies the Assumption viz. That we are in Covenant with God or that we have any right and title to any blessing of the Covenant before we believe But before he will give his Reasons for the Negative he is willing to hear mine for the Affirmative This seeming civility ushers in a notorious slander That I was so obstreperous in our Conference that I would not give him a fair hearing which hath been sufficiently disproved in another place nay his own mouth did acquit me in the close of that discourse before I belive a thousand witnesses I wonder though his Conscience was asleep when this fell from his Pen that his memory should fail him Me thinks he should have been more tender of his own reputation then to contradict himself though he had a desire to blast mine but as if it were not enough to mis-report my actions he takes upon him the office of God to judge my heart I believe sayes he he is resolved to give it unto no body else whiles the judgement of the cause must be left to the people Yes to himself or any one else when I have an occasion for the like essay I am sure he hath not found me heretofore of so morose a spirit as not to weigh and yeeld unto better reason he is no fit champion to defend the Faith who is so much a stranger to the rules of Charity which thinketh no evil but hopes the best I confess I am yet to seek for the Reason of his next clause whilest the judgement of the cause must be left to the people One would think that he who leaves the judgement of his cause unto the people should be most willing they should have a fair hearing of whatsoever can be said either pro or con or else he cannot expect their Votes should be for him The people are apt to think he hath the better cause whose mouth is stopt But perhaps it sticks in his stomack That in our Conference I desired the people to weigh and judge of some interpretations of Scripture which were given by him It was far from my thoughts to refer the decision of the Question unto most voices either of Ministers or people The Judgement desired was that of private discretion and not of publick determination though the latter ought not to be usurped by Minâ—sters whose Reasons and not their Votes must satisfie mens Consciences yet the former ought not to be denied to the meanest Christians who are required to judge for themselves to prove and try the Doctrines which are brought unto them Now why this expression should be faulted I see no cause unless men would have the people to content themselves with an implicite Faith such as the Romanists do allow their disciples who use them as Babes which must swallow whatsoever their Nurses do put into their mouths The Church of Christ saith Optatus is rationabilis she hath the use both of Natural and Supernatural Reason Did Christians more generally see with their own eyes make use of that Light and Reason which God hath given them they would never acquiesce in many of those Dictates which are imposed upon them will any man that hath a spark of Reason beleeve that I am doth signifie I will bee § 4. Well now he hath heard my Reason That we are in Covenant or have a right and title to the blessings of the Covenant before we beleeve because some benefits of the Covenant to wit the Spirit which workes Faith is given us before we beleeve What hath he to say against it 1. He undertakes to explaine that which is plain enough the word Give as that it is taken 1 for constituting or appointing and 2 for the actual collating of a benefit so as that it is received and possessed by him to whom it is given 2. He tels us of sundry ways how the Spirit is said to be given 1 Essentially 2 Personally 3 Operatively All which is nothing at all to the matter in hand but serves meerly to raise a dust to blind the unwary Reader The termes need neither distinction nor explication being easie enough to be understood by the weakest capacity When we say That the Spirit which works Faith is given us before wee beleeve none can well imagine that we meant it of Gods purpose or decree to give the Spirit but of the actuall sending or bestowing of him nor yet of an Essentiall or Personal giving of the Spirit so as to be Hypostatically united to us as the God-head of the Son is to the Humane nature though some godly
them in the fittest times Now the Absoluteness of the New Covenant is so far from being any impediment to Faith as that it affords men the greatest encouragement to believe both to cast themselves into the arms of Christ and to put on a strong confidence of inheriting all the promises seeing that in their accomplishment they depend not upon Works and Conditions performed by themselves § 5. Mr. W. demands 1 Whether there be an absolute promise made to every man that God will give him grace Though there be not yet are the general promises of the Covenant a sufficient ground for our Faith for as much as Grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners which all that are ordained to life shall believe and lay hold of But says Mr. W. is it sense to exhort men to take hold of Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be onely an absolute promise on Gods part c. What contradiction is there unto sense in either of these For 1. what is it to lay hold of the Covenant but as Benhadads Servants did by Ahabs words 1 Kings 20.33 to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners and to resolve with the woman of Cannan not to be beaten off with any discouragements Which act of Faith is called The taking of the Kingdom of Heaven by violence Matth. 11 12. Which is when a Soule appropriates generall Promises to himselfe in particular And against Hope beleeves in Hope The Apostle calls it Fleeing for refuge to lay hold on the Promise Heb. 6.18 which Promise is the same which God confirmed by an Oath Vers. 17. Now wee doe not finde that God did ever confirme any Conditionall Promise with an Oath but onely those Absolute Promises of his Grace Isai. 54.9 10. Psal. 89 34 35. As for the other phrase of entering into Covenant with God Though wee never find it in the New Testament that the Apostles did exhort men to enter into or to make a Covenant with God yet I conceive that it may bee used in reference to the Externall Administration of the New Covenant Men may bee said to enter into Covenant with God when they take upon them the profession of Christianity and give up themselves to bee the Lords People In this respect wee may exhort men as the Apostle doth To give up themselves a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God and to abide stedfast in the Covenant of God or rather as the Apostles phrase is To hold fast their Profession firme unto the end Hebr. 3.6 It were absurd to exhort men either to make or to concurre to the making of the Covenant of Grace which is his act alone who sheweth mercy unto whom he will § 6. His next Interogative is a very strange one he asks us Whether if the Covenant be an absolute Promise it be sense to accuse blame and damne men for unbeleefe and rejecting of the Gospell Was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death for not being the objects of an absolute Promise By his favor who did ever say that men are damned for not being objects of an Absolute Promise We say the condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God hath made with Christ or Gods not giving them unto Jesus Christ but this is antecessio ordinis non causalitatis their exclusion from this Covenant is but an Antecedent and not the cause of their destruction Men are damned for not beleeving that Grace which God hath manifested to sinners for not receiving it with that esteem and such affections as it doth deserve so that formally the cause of their damnation is not their non-being objects of Gods absolute Promise but their disobedience to the Command of God If he say as the Remonstrators have done before him That they are unjustly blamed and damned for unbeleefe seeing they have no Object for their Faith no Christ to beleeve in We shall Answer That there is a reall Object proposed to their Faith though there be no such absolute Promise that God will give Grace to every man in particular the Object of Faith is the Written Word and more especially the Free Promises of Mercy unto wretched sinners for the sake of Christ which all men are commanded to beleeve both assensu intellectus amplexu voluntatis and for their unbeleefe they perish everlastingly If he shall ask Why God doth command them to beleeve in Christ seeing he never intended they should have any good or benefit by Christ I must say with the Apostle Rom. 9 20. O man who art thou that disputest against God We ought to look to his Commands and not curiously to search into his Councels Deut. 22 29. We know that the Preaching of the Gospell was ordained principally for gathering Gods Elect now because Ministers know not who are Elected and who are not It was necessary that the offer of Grace and command of Beleeving should be universall which will be imbraced and obeyed by all that are ordained to life § 7. His fourth and last Argument against the absolutenesse of the New Covenant is If the Covenant of Grace be an absolute Promise then no men in the world but wicked and ungodly men are in Covenant with God To which I Answer 1 It is very true That the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ in behalfe of sinners and none else Matthew 9.13 The whole need not a Phisitian but the sick If men were not sinners and ungodly there would be no need at all of the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Works would have been sufficient either it is made with sinners or none 2 It will not follow that when men are in Covenant or doe partake of some blessings of the Covenant that immediately the Covenant ceaseth when we are in Glory the Covenant shall not cease for the continuance of Glory is promised in the Covenant no lesse then Glory it selfe for which cause it is called an Everlasting Covenant So that his inference is very irrationall If the Covenant be an absolute Promise then none but wicked i. e. unregenerate persons are perfectly in Covenant with God It followes rather from his owne opinion for if the Covenant be a conditional Promise when the condition is performed the Covenant is so far forth fulfilled and the Preformers of it so far forth doe cease to be in Covenant and so consequently none but wicked men i. e. such as have not yet fulfilled the Condition shall be the objects of the Covenant or the persons to whom it doth belong Or else it must follow that none at all are perfectly in Covenant with God the Performers of the Condition are not because the Condition being performed the Covenant is fulfilled and thereby ceaseth to be a Covenant and the non-performers of the Condition are not for till the Condition be performed