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
controversie would be but a meer Tautology for though it be the same Justification wherewith we are iustified in the sight of God and in the Court of Conscience yet the terms are not equipollent and convertible but do admit of distinct considerations though he that is justified in foro conscientiae is also justified in foro Dei yet every one that is justified in foro Dei is not justified in foro conscientiae § 3. Now according to these several Senses which are given of this forementioned phrase it will be easie to resolve the third Query concerning the time of our Justification when we were justified in the sight of God 1. If we take it in this last Construction I shall grant That we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe We do not know nor can we plead the benefits and comforts of this Blessed Priviledge until we do believe it is by Faith that the Righteousness of God is revealed to us and it is by his knowledge notitia sui that Christ doth justifie us or inables us to plead not guilty to all the Indictments and Menaces of the Law But 2. if we refer it to the justice of God which I conceive to be the most proper and genuine use of it we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his Blood for all our sins that ransome of his set them for whom he died free from the Curse of the Law cleansed them from all their sins and presented them holy blameless and unreproveable in the sight of God so that the eye of Divine Justice cannot behold in them the least spot of sin This perfect cleansing is the sole and immediate effect of the death of Christ in regard that no other cause concurs therewith in producing of it 3. If we refer it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himself not to impute to us our sins or to inflict those punishments upon us which our sins deserve but contrariwise to deal with us as righteous persons having given us the Righteousness of his own Son God doth certainly know whatsoever he wills Now God having from all eternity absolutely and immutably willed the Righteousness of his Son to all his Elect he saw or knew them to be righteous in his Righteousness even when he willed it § 4. For the clearer understanding of the Point in question I shall give in my Judgement concerning it as distinctly as I can in three Propositions proposition 1 The first shall be this That Justification is taken variously in the Scripture but more especially Pro volitione divina pro re volita as the Schools do speak 1 For the Will of God not to punish or impute sin unto his people and 2 for the effect of Gods Will to wit His not punishing or his setting of them free from the Curse of the Law That Justification is put for the effect of Gods will or the thing willed by that Internal Act to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment I suppose there is none will question the onely scruple that can arise is Whether the Will of God not to punish or charge sin upon a person is or may be called Justification I confess to the end that I might not offend the weak I have been sparing of calling this immanent act of God by the name of Justification and the rather because some gross mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of this expression As 1 that absurd conceit That Christ came not to satisfie the justice but onely to manifest the love of God which yet hath not the least countenance from our Doctrine seeing that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect we say That the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no less then for the sins of others And 2 their notion who upon this ground have asserted the Eternal Being of the Creature whereunto they were driven because they could not answer that Consequence Justificatus est Ergo Est which holds not in terminis diminuent ibus whether à priori as Electus est Ergo Est or à posteriori Mortuus est Ergo Est. Yet I must profess That I look upon Dr. Twisse his judgement in this point as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the Will of God not to punish Mr. Kendal though he makes Justification to be a declared sentence or transient act of God yet he grants That Gods Will or Decree to remit our sins carries in it a remission of them tan◠amount for who shall charge them on us if God decree to remit them And again This Decree hath so much in it that looks so well like unto Justification that is may be called so without Blasphemy But I see no inconvenience at all but rather very much reason to adhere unto the Doctors definition That Justification is the Will of God not to punish 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives us of Justification is most properly applied to this act of God It is a certain rule Definitum est cui convenit definitio that is Justification whereunto the definition of Justification doth agree The definition which the Psalmist and from him the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and his imputing of righteousness unto a person Psal. 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 8. Now when God willeth not to punish a person he doth not impute sin to him The original words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified do make it more clear for both of them do signifie an act of the minde or will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used by the Psalmist is properly to think repute esteem or account and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same signification it is usually applied to Accountants who when they have cast up many sums do set down at the foot what they do amount unto So when a man hath accounted with himself the loss and benefit conveniencies and inconveniencies that may accrue unto him the result and issue of his deliberation is significantly expressed by this word it notes a stedfast purpose and resolution Quae quasi rationibus subductis explicatis conclusa est it is opposed unto a doubtful and uncertain opinion It notes either the purpose or determination of one alone or the consent and agreement of two between themselves whereof Camerarius gives us an instance out of Zenophon This word is fitly used to signifie this immanent act of God for though he doth not purpose and resolve in that manner as men do by comparing things together or by reasoning and concluding one thing out of another yet are his purposes much more firm and immutable Mal. 3.6 Jam. 1.17 Numb 23.19 The Lord therefore did non-impute sin
a Stone or other Creatures which are not capable of sinning but Privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of Righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentiâ The difference between these is as great as between a mans will not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted and his will not to require any thing of one that never did nor will ow him any thing 2 This non-imputation of sin is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being in like manner the imputation of Righteousness is actual though the Righteousness to be imputed is not actual Man whose thoughts arise de novo doth non-impute usually after the commission of a fault but for God who is without any shadow of change and turning so to do is absolutely impossible for as much as there cannot arise any new will or new thought in the heart of God 3 This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable Will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it and he in like manner imputing Righteousness none can hinder it Neither doth this render the death of Christ useless which is necessary by the Ordinance of God as a meritorious cause of all the effects of this Justification even as the eternal Love of God is compleat in it self but yet is Christ the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Eph. 1.3 4. And therefore we say § 7. 2. That if Justification be taken as most commonly it proposition 2 is not for the Will of God but for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Though there be no cause of the former out of God himself for the merits of Christ do not move God to will not to punish or impute sin unto us yet is Christ the meritorious cause of the latter It is from the vertue of his Sacrifice that the obligation of the Law is made void and the punishments therein threatned do not fall upon us By his death he obtained in behalf of all the Elect not a remote possible or conditional reconciliation but an actual absolute and immediate reconciliation as shall be proved anon And in this respect all that were given unto Christ by the Father may be said to be justified at his death not onely virtually but formally for the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor Their discharge from the Law was not to be sub termino or in Diem but present and immediate it being impossible that a debt should be discharged and due at the same time We acknowledge That the effects of this discharge from the Law may be said to be sub termino or in Diem As for instance from that full satisfaction and perfect Righteousness which Christ hath performed there arise these two things One is The non-execution of the desert of sin which we continually commit upon us That whereas the Reprobate sin and upon their sin the curse with all the evils included in it is upon them The Elect likewise sinning yet for Christs sake the curse or evil of suffering is not inflicted upon them which non-punishing quoad effectum is forgiving and not imputing sin And in this sense God is frequently said to forgive when he doth not inflict punishment and in this sense also he is said often to forgive The other is The imputation of Righteousness in the effects of it whereby the effects of a true and perfect Righteousness come upon the people of God to wit All good things both for this life and that which is to come yea those things which seem to be evil and hurtful as their falls and afflictions are ordered by the over-ruling hand of a wise and powerful Providence to work together for good unto them These effects are immediate in respect of causality though not of time for though God doth not presently bestow them but as he sees fit both for his own glory and for their good yet do they immediately slow from the merit of Christ in regard there is no other meritorious cause that intervenes and concurs therewith in procuring of them Notwithstanding we say That our discharge from the Law must needs be immediate and present with the price or satisfaction that was paid for it in regard That it implies a contradiction a debt should be paid and discharged and yet justly chargable But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter § 8. 3. Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution proposition 3 and forgiveness And thus God is said to justifie men when he reveals and makes known to them his Grace and Kindness within himself And in this sense do most of our Divines take Justification defining it The declared sence of absolution and not improperly For in Scripture phrase as was noted before things are then said to be when they are declared and manifested the declaring of things is expressed in such wise as if it made them to be whereof many instances might be given a very plain one there is Gen. 41.13 Pharaohs cheif Butler speaking of Josephs interpretation Me says he he restored and him i. e. the Baker he hanged whereas he did but declare these successes unto them So God is said to justifie his people when he manifests and reveals to them that mercy and forgiveness which before was hidden in his own heart to wit that he doth not impute their sins but contrariwise doth impute Righteousness unto them Now the Lord at sundry times and divers ways hath and doth declare and manifest this precious Grace unto his people 1 More Generally towards all his Elect and 2 more Particularly to individuals or numerical persons The former is done 1 in the Word of God and 2 in his Works and Actions § 9. First God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to his people in his Word The Gospel or New Covevant being an absolute promise as we shall shew anon may be fitly termed a Declarative Sentence of Absolution unto all the Elect to whom alone it doth belong the publication of the New Covenant is their Justification For which cause Maccovius makes Justification to Commence from the first promise which was pronounced before the curse So that if Adam had not been a publick person including both the Elect and Reprobate there had been no curse at all pronounced save onely upon the Serpent or Satan in reference to this promise it was that the Apostle saith The Grace of God 2 Tim. 1.9 and eternal life Tit. 1.2 was given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie eternity as our Translators carry it but the beginning of time it is of the same latitude with 〈◊〉
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
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
the Covenant but as the means by which we are brought into Covenant It being so crudely asserted a bare denial might serve the turn But 1 I shall appeal to the indifferent Reader whether it doth not sound very harshly That the same words should be formally both a precept and a promise and that God should require a condition of us and yet promise to work it in us How shall we distinguish between precepts and promises Mr. W may be pleased to consider what some Grand Assertors of Conditions have said thereof 2 I would ask whether this promise of Faith be not a part of the New Covenant All the promises of God do belong either to the Covenant of Works or to the Covenant of Grace It is no part of the Covenant of Works Ergo It is a part of the Covenant of Grace Now if the promise be a part of the New Covenant the thing promised is an effect of the Covenant or a benefit given by vertue of it 3 I would ask whether the promise of Faith be not an effect of Christs death If it be then is it an effect of the Covenant already made for all the effects of his death are effects of the Covenant which was confirmed by his death who for this cause is called the Covenant Isa. 42.6 49.8 implying That all the benefits of the Covenant are the fruits and purchases of his death and that Christ hath not purchased any thing for us but what is promised in the Covenant the effects of the Covenant and the effects of Christs death are of equal latitude 4 The Scripture no where affirms That Faith is promised as a means to bring us into Covenant or to invest us with a right and title thereunto That which gives men interest in the Covenant is the good pleasure of God willing those blessings to them and the purchase which Christ hath made in their behalf who hath performed whatsoever was necessary by Divine constitution in order to our having of them We grant That Faith is the means whereby we come to know our interest in the Covenant and in all the benefits thereof But their saying That hereby we have or do obtain our interest and title to the Covenant hath not any ground that I finde in the Written Word If any shall infer it from hence because it is said Believe and thou shalt be saved they may as well make Baptism Sanctification Perseverance c. to which the promise of Salvation is sometimes annexed means to bring us into Covenant or to invest us with a right and title to the benefits of it and consequently no man shall have any interest in the Covenant as long as he lives and till these conditions be performed To conclude If the promise of Faith be a part of the Covenant as hath been shewed then is it not a means to bring us into Covenant or to invest us with a title to the benefits of it because it is impossible that the same thing should be the means or cause of it self CHAP. XVIII Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Exposition of the New Covenant mentioned Jere. 31.33 and in other places is further examined THe Tenor of the New Covenant in the Prophet whose words are punctually cited by the Apostle Heb. 8. runs thus This is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and will be their God and they shall be my people and c. But now Mr. W. renders it thus This is the Covenant which I will make with the House of Israel when I shall write my Laws in their hearts I will be their God c. or This is the Covenant which I will make saith the Lord that giveth his Laws into their mindes and writeth them in their hearts c. I know not what can be called wresting of the Scripture if this be not If men may take the liberty to chop and change to adde or diminish from the Word at their pleasure nothing can certainly be concluded thence nay the Scripture might be made a shelter for the foulest Errors It savors not of a spirit that trembles at the Word and believes that threatning Revel 22.18 to make so bold with the Oracles of God The word when is neither in nor agreeable to the Hebrew or Greek Text though he would make his Reader believe that it is in both The Verbs in the first clause are not in the Present but Future tense as in the rest which follow Besides his Paraphrase chargeth the Holy Ghost with a gross tautalogy if not a flat contradiction The time of making this Covenant is signified in these words After those days which undoubtedly ought to be referred unto the days of the Messiah in opposition to the times before when the Grace of this Covenant was not so clearly revealed so that it was needless he should adde When I put my Laws c. And if God makes not his Covenant with Spiritual Israel till he writes his Laws in their hearts then the former clause After those dayes must either stand for nothing or else imply a falshood In a word The unsoundness of this gloss doth appear from hence that these words are not onely here but in many other places mentioned as a distinct promise of the New Covenant and not as a bare connotation of the time or a Periphrasis of the person that makes the Covenant as Mr. W. carries it See Deut. 30.6 Ezek. 36.26 27. Jere. 32.38 39. where that promise which Mr. W. calls The matter or substance of the Covenant on Gods part is put first and the other which he calls the Condition is made as it were the Consequence of the former § 2. The Scriptures he hath brought to countenance his new found interpretation of the Covenant will by no means shelter it as Jere. 24.7 I will give them a heart to know me that I am the Lord and they shall be my people and I will be their God for they shall return unto me with their whole heart Where says he the condition on the peoples part of the Lords being their God is their returning with their whole heart The affirmation is not so clear as not to need a proof that promise I will give them a heart to know me is as hath been shewed one principal blessing of the New Covenant the immediate effect whereof is Mens returning unto God with their whole heart Now to call their returning unto God the condition of Gods being their God is as unhappy a mistake as his That set the Cart before the horse Could they have returned to God unless God had returned to them Are not Faith and Repentance the fruits of our Reconciliation by the blood of Christ God having given us his Son hath with him given us all things else Rom. 8.32 Mr. â—alvin calls this blessing of Gods being our God Causam
which â—e endeavored to maintain against those blessed Martyrs of Jesus Christ Barns Hierome and Garret who sealed the contrary Doctrine with their dearest blood 1 The effect of Christs passion hath a Condition the fulfilling of the Condition diminisheth nothing from the effect of Christs passion 2 They that will injoy the effect of Christs passion must fulfil the Condition 3 The fulfilling of the Condition requireth first knowledge of the Condition which knowledge we have by Faith 4 Faith commeth of God and this Faith is a good gift It is good and profitable for me to do well and to exercise this Faith Ergo By the gift of God I may do wel before I am justified 5 By the gift of God I may doe well towards the attainment of Justification 6 There is ever as much Charity towards God as Faith and as Faith increaseth so doth Charity increase 7 To the attainment of Justification is required Faith and Charity 8 Every thing is to be called freely done whereof the beginning is free and set at liberty without any cause of provocation 9 Faith must be to me the assurance of the Promises of God made in Christ if I fulfil the condition and love must accomplish the condition whereupon followeth the attainment of the Promise according to Gods Truth 10 A man being in deadly sin may have Grace to doe the works of Repentance whereby hee may attain to his Justification Never did the child saies G. Joy so lively resemble his own Father as these Articles do expresse the Bishop of Romes Anti-christian Doctrine And as for his choise Notion of Justification by Workes as they are our New Covenant Righteousnesse I finde it was a shift of the Papists long agoe The said Doctor Barnes having cited this passage out of Bernard I do abhor whatsoever thing is of me c. See saies he Bernard doth despise all his good works and taketh him onely to Grace Now had he no works of the New Law as you call them I shall not trace Mr. B. any farther there being now in the Presse as I am informed a large and full answer to his Paradoxicall Aphorismes by a faithful Servant of the Lord Jesus a workman that needs not to be ashamed though I heartily wish that the work may provoke others unto shame who have more strength leisure and far greater helps for such undertakings then Country Ministers I dare say that they who sate at the stern in our Vniversities heretofore such as Reynolds Whittaker Davenant Prideaux c. would never have indured to see so many Popish and Arminian books far more dangerous then the Ranters blasphemous Pamphlets shew their heads but would have sent forth their Antidotes to correct their poison I doe speake the more freely to stir up others of greater abilities then my selfe to undertake this cause least it should suffer overmuch through my weaknesse in managing it We were wont to say that if a man doth plead for the King all is to be taken in good part the design of this Discourse was to plead the cause of the greatest King that no flesh might glory in his presence who of God is made unto us Wisdome Righteousnesse Sanctification and Redemption though the Advocate hath not holpen the Cause yet the goodnesse of the Cause may excuse the Advocate I shall desire thee to read without prejudice and either to read all or none for that which is curtaild in one place is more explained in another If thou reapest any good from what I have written I know thy returns will be according to my hearts desire Praises unto God and more fervent prayers for Thy Servant in the Work of the Gospel W. EYRE The Third day of the Ninth Month. 1653. Justification without conditions OR The Free Justification of a Sinner justified CHAP. I. Shewing the occasion of this Discourse and the rise of the Controversie which is here debated SInce it hath pleased the Lord to reveal the riches of his Son unto me and to make me a Steward and Dispenser of this Grace unto his People the cheif design of my Ministry hath been to bottom my hearers upon Christ alone that they might have no confidence in the flesh but in that perfect and everlasting Righteousness which he hath wrought For which end it hath been my care frequently and clearly to demonstrate to them both the sole-sufficiency and efficiency of Christ in the work of Mans Redemption that he is able to save unto the utmost and that no work of ours either before or after our Conversion doth share with him in the glory of this atchievement In a word That there is no cause without God concurring with the precious and invaluable merit of his Blood to present us holy unblameable and unreprovable in the sight of God Which truth as it shines clearer then the Sun throughout the Scripture so it appears unto me to be of greatest moment when I consider the concernment thereof both to God and Christ and to the precious souls of Gods Elect I know nothing that gives so much glory unto God and Christ as to proclaim him the onely Saviour and that besides him there is none other that we ow the whole work of our Salvation from the beginning to the end unto Christ alone and surely there is no point in the whole Doctrine of Godliness which contributes so much to the Peace Security and Fruitfulness of the Saints as this doth It affords the greatest encouragement to sinners to believe to believers to hold fast their confidence firm unto the end and to serve God with a willing minde in Righteousness and true Holiness all the days of their life § 2 Now though this truth be so evident and my intentions in pressing it such as have been mentioned yet it hath hapned unto me as unto many of my betters to be mistaken and by some of my own Profession who insinuated into the people That I taught a new Gospel made Faith and Repentance to be needless things for no other reason that I know of but because I dare not give them that honor which is due to Christ in making them concauses with him in procuring our Peace with God and in obtaining our Right and Interest in all the Benefits which he hath purchased for they themselves are my witnesses would they speak their knowledge as to matter of Fact that in all my Exercises though usually something of Christ be the Doctrine which I handle yet the use that I make of it is to press men unto Faith and Holiness Nay I challenge all my Adversaries to say that ever I positively spake so much as one syllable to lessen the esteem of Inherent Holiness though I am not ashamed comparatively to say as the Apostle doth That I count all things but loss and dung that I may win Christ Jesus Phil. 3.8 But otherwise I thank the Lord if I should speak
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
to his people when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant That his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins would deserve The Remonstrants do acknowledge That non-imputation or remission of sin is an immanent act in God Quam Deus in sua ipsius mente efficit We are commanded to forgive one another as God hath forgiven us now we know that our forgiveness is principally an act of the heart As when a man purposeth in himself not to take revenge he doth then forgive But of this we shall have occasion to speak more largely in our Answer to Mr. Woodbridges first Argument 2. That which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification but by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. The Assumption onely will need to be proved which is abundantly confirmed 1 by those places which make mention of Gods unspeakable Grace and Love towards them from everlasting For what is the Love of God but his velle dare bonum his fixed and immutable Will to bestow upon them the greatest good that they are capable of Now when God set his love upon them he said unto them Live Ezek. 16.6 This Will of God did secure them from death and destruction it was a real discharge from condemnation But 2 more plainly from the words of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect. The Proposition is either a Universal Negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or a Universal Affirmative All Elect persons are free from the charge of sin Which way soever we take it is evident That the Proposition is Universal Now if this priviledge did belong onely to Elect Believers as some would limit the Text the Proposition were false for though all true Believers are Elect persons yet all the Elect are not Believers It is as if one should say Omne animal is rationale and to excuse it say That by Omne animal he meant omnis homo and to prove the Expression Legitimate should alledge that homo is often called animal which is true but very impertinent to prove that omne animal may be put for omnis homo § 5. All that I have yet seen alledged against this Member of the distinction That Gods will not to punish is not Justification is of little moment It is objected 1. That hereby Justification and Election are objection 1 confounded I answer That it follows not they may be both of them immanent eternal Acts and yet not confounded For Election and Reprobation are eternal immanent Acts yet they are not confounded Indeed all different immanent acts are but one simple act in God in whose Decrees there is no Priority or Posteriority seeing as Hilary speaks Omnia penès Deum aequabili aeternitatis infinitate consistunt Yet in our consideration they receive sufficient distinction from their various Objects and our various Applicatâ—on of them And thus Election and Justification are distinguished Election includes both the end which is the glory of Gods Grace and all the means from the beginning to the ending conducing thereunto His will not to punish includes precisely and formally onely some part of the means 2. It is objected That Justification imports â— change of the objection 2 persons state to wit Ab injusto ad justum which cannot be attributed to the simple and unchangeable Decrees of God I answer That if Justification be taken for the thing willed viz. The delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law then there is a great change made thereby he that was a childe of wrath by Nature hath peace and reconciliation with God But if we take it for the Will of God not to punish then we say Justification doth not suppose any such change as if God had first a will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his will to a will not to punish them The change therefore of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man in reference thereunto by whose sentence the Transgressor is unjust but being considered at the tribunal of Grace and cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ he is just and righteous which is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person God may be said at the same time to look upon a person both as sinful and as righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature and as righteous in reference to his state by Grace Now this change being but imputed not inherent it supposeth not the being of the Creature much less any inherent difference in the state of the Creature no more then electing love makes any inherent present change Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth objection 3 3. Others have objected That hereby we make void the death of Christ for if Justification be an immanent act in God it is Antecedent not onely to Faith but to the merits of Christ which is contrary to many Scriptures that do ascribe our Justification unto his blood as the meritorious cause To which I answer That although Gods will not to punish be Antecedent to the death of Christ yet for all we may be said to be justified in him because the whole effect of that will is by and for the sake of Christ. As though electing Love precede the consideration of Christ John 3.16 yet are we said to be chosen in him Eph. 1.4 because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him Gods non-punishing of us is the fruit of his death yet his will not to punish is Antecedent thereunto objection 4 4. Others say we may as well call his will to create Creation and his will to call Calling and to glorifie Glorification as his will to justifie Justification We Answer That there is not the same Reason for creating calling and glorifying all which do import an Inherent change in the person created called glorified which forgiveness doth not it being perfect and compleat in the minde of God § 6. These things being weighed in the ballances of an equal Judgment I suppose the phrase would not sound so harsh as it doth to many however were the thing it self granted That there was in God from Everlasting an absolute fixed and immutable will never to deal with his people according to their sins but to deal with them as righteous persons this Controversie were ended For 1 Gods non-imputation of sin to his Elect is not purely Negative as the non-imputation of sin unto
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
Faith in the propitiation and atonement of Jesus Christ whereby their defects and obliquities are done away § 6. 4 Whereas he addes That it was a poor answer which I gave to Mr. Good That God was well pleased with his Elect whilest unregenerate though not with their unregeneracy 1. As far as it concerns my self I shall subscribe to his censure I am poor but he is rich I am empty but he is full But 2. he may be pleased to take notice that a far richer man then himself in all kinde of learning both Humane and Divine hath given the very same answer unto this question Mr. Pemble distinguisheth between Gods love to our persons and Gods love to our qualities and actions A distinction which sayes he parents are well skilled in who put a difference between the vices and persons of their children those they hate these they love even when for their vices they do chastise their persons The case sayes he is the same between God and the Elect his love to their persons is from everlasting the same nor doth their sinfulness lessen it nor their sanctity increase it because God in loving their persons never considered them otherwise then as most perfectly holy and unblameable in Jesus Christ c. It is a strange inference which he draws from my words That because I said God is well pleased with the persons of his Elect whilest unregenerate that afterwards he is well pleased with their unregeneracy also He might as well impose this absurdity upon the Prophet that because he saith Ezek. 16.8 Thy time to wit of unregeneracy was the time of love Surely not of their unregeneracy but of their persons then unregenerate that therefore the Prophet supposeth that after their Conversion God did love their unregeneracy or that corruption of nature which remained in them Such quibbles are unbeseeming serious Christians § 7. I shall adde but a word to clear up the difference between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons And first we say that the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful which though they are pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight Prov. 5.8 Tit. 1.15 Isai. 1.13 c. Secondly Though as the Orthodox acknowledge the best works of the best men have not in them that Inherent purity and holiness which can stand before God without the mediation of their High Priest yet they may be said to be acceptable and pleasing unto God not onely comparatively because they are better then the works of unregenerate men or then the sinful works of such as are regenerate but absolutely and that two ways 1. Abstractly and in themselves or as they ought to be done and thus Faith Hope Love c. are acceptable to God for they are that spiritual worship and service which God looks for and delights in Joh. 4.23 Micah 6.8 Gal. 5.5 6. Phil. 3.3 And in this respect a meek and a quiet spirit is said to be of great price in the sight of God 1 Pet. 3.4 2. Concretely as they are acted by us or do pass through our hands and so they are acceptable to God as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 Our spiritual sacrifices are made acceptable to God in Jesus Christ or by his taking away the sin and defilement that adheres unto them Our High Priest doth not procure the acceptance of those works which in their whole abstract nature are sinful such as are all our works before Conversion and the fruits of the flesh after Conversion he obtains forgiveness but not acceptance for them But now those works which come from the Spirit of God and are sinful onely through the mixture of our corruptions as sweet water which passeth through a sink these he makes acceptable to the Father by taking away the imperfections and defilements that adhere unto them § 8. The next Scripture which Mr. W. hath brought in by way of objection against himself is Rom. 5.10 When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son To which he answers That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled Against this answer of his I shall offer these Exceptions 1 It offers a manifest violence to the Text to say That we were reconciled is as much as we shall be reconciled when we have performed the terms and conditions required of us 2 If our reconciliation to God did depend upon terms and conditions performed by us then is it not through the death of Christ that we are reconciled unto God we should be more the cause of our reconciliation then Christ is for he that performs a condition to which a benefit is promised doth more to the procuring of it then he that makes or obtains that conditional grant notwithstanding which he is never awhit the near of the benefit unless his own act do concur 3 The Apostle declares That this reconciliation was made when we were enemies Ergo Before our believing or the fulfilling of any condition on our part For Believers are not enemies 4 If his meaning were no more then this that it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will that we are reconciled then this clause when we were enemies would be superfluous and redundant whereas the main emphasis of the Text doth lie therein as is evident from the gradation which the Apostle makes Vers. 6 8 10. 5 The Apostle in 2 Cor. 5.19 affirms That our Saviour did not onely pay the price of our reconciliation but that God did so far accept of or acquiesce therein that upon the payment of it he did not impute our sins unto us i. e. he justified us for the Apostle Rom. 4. defines Justification to be the non-imputation of sin 6 And lastly That which he grants yeelds the matter in question viz. The immediate actual reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ for if Christ by shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtor is free in Law it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid § 9. Secondly To illustrate and confirm his Answer he makes use of Grotius his distinction of three moments or periods of the Will of God 1 at Enmity 2 Appeasable 3 Appeased 1. Before the consideration of the death of Christ God saith he is at enmity with the sinner though not averse from all ways and means of reconciliation 2. After the consideration of the death of Christ and now is the Lord not onely appeasable but doth also
promise that he will be reconciled with sinners upon such terms as he himself shall propose 3. After Intercession on Christs part and Faith on the sinners part and now is God actually reconciled and in friendship with the sinner This Grotian and Vorstian Divinity is monstrous gross which renders God as changable as a fickle Creature and palpably denies his God-like nature scil His Simplicity Eternity Omnisciency Immutability c. Arminius himself was more modest then to affirm a change in the Will of God nay Plato was a more Orthodox Divine in this point who said That the first mover can be moved of none but by himself The Will of God is not inclined or moved by any thing without him unto any of his acts whether Immanent or Transient for that which is the cause of his Will is the cause of himself seeing that his Will is his Essence The death of Christ doth not cause any alteration in the Will of God his Merits are not the cause why God doth love us or will to us the blessings of his Covenant they did not change God ex nolente in volentem ex odio hâ—bente in diligentem as Greevenchovius dreamed And the Reasons are 1 Because God is unchangable he neither ceaseth to will what at any time he intended nor doth he begin to will what he did not always purpose 2 Because no reason can be given of the Will of God Aquinas says well Nullum temporale c. Nothing that hath its being in time can be the cause of that which is eternal for then the effect should be before the cause Now that I may not actum agere I shall desire the Reader to consult what Mr. Owen hath said in answer to this notion of Grâ—tius whereof if Mr. W. had vouchsafed to take any notice he might have seen cause enough to decline from the steps of his admired Grotius § 10. Thirdly he infers That because the Apostle saith Vers. 11. We have now received the atonement or reconciliation Ergo Not before we believed To which I answer 1 He might as well reason that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15.20 Now is Christ risen Ergo He was not risen before he writ that Epistle and from Eph. 2.2 The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief Ergo He did not work in them before 2 If it be referred to our receiving or apprehension by Faith it doth not prove that the reconciliation or atonement was not made before There is a wide difference between the making or obtaining of reconciliation and our receiving of it though we cannot receive or apply it to our selves any otherwise then by Faith yet it follows not That God did not account it unto us before The Typical Sacrifices made a present atonement much more the real see Heb. 9.14 § 11. Fourthly He gives us his opinion concerning the immediate effect of the death of Christ Which saith Mr. Baxter is one of the greatest and noblest questions in our controverted Divinity he that can rightly answer this is a Divine indeed And no doubt but Mr. W. deserves the Bell in his account Let us therefore see what a glorious atcheivement he ascribes unto it It is saith he through the death of Christ that the promise of reconciliation is made by and according to which we are actually reconciled unto God after we do believe to wit at the day of judgement when we have performed that and all other conditions required of us which in sum is as if he had said That the death of Christ procured no certain or immediate effect at all For notwithstanding his death it is possible that none may be saved for things obtained under condition are as to their accomplishment altogether uncertain for the condition may be fulfilled or it may not be fulfilled The utmost which hereby is ascribed to the death of Christ is That he hath obtaâ—ned a salvability for sinners or a way whereby they may become their own saviours which in the old Popish English is That Christ hath merited that we might merit Eternal life or as the Remonstrants have refined the phrase His death hath made God placabilem but not placatum A shift says Pemble devised meerly to uphold the liberty of mans will and universal Redemption Whereunto the abettors of this notion do hie them apace § 12. But against it I shall oppose these considerations 1 The Scripture no where ascribes this effect to the death of Christ That he died to obtain a conditional grant that we by performing the condition might be reconciled to God but to obtain peace and reconciliation it self Daniel doth not say that Messiah shall be cut off to obtain a promise but to make an end of sin c. Chap. 9.24 Nor the Apostle that Christ by the blood of the cross hath obtained a conditional promise of reconciliation but that he hath made peace Col. 1.20 broken down the partition wall Ephes. 2.14 delivered us from the curse Gal. 3.13 And our Saviour in that of Matth. 26.28 which Mr. W. cites doth not say That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise whereby all men may obtain remission but for the remission of the sins of many i. e. of all the Elect. 2 If Christ by his death obtained onely a conditional promise then was his death no more available to the Elect then unto Reprobates no more to Peter then it was to Judas whereas the Scripture shews us That the effects of Christs death are peculiar onely to the Elect. See John 10.15 16 26. 17.9 20. 3 If Christ by his death obtained but a conditional promise then do men more for their Salvation then Christ hath done for he that performs the condition doth more to his Salvation then he that obtained the conditional promise notwithstanding which he might have perished 4 It makes Christ to have died in vain at least without any determinate end in reference unto them for whom he died seeing that notwithstanding his death it was possible that none at all might be saved And thus as Mr. Owen hath noted he is made a Surety of an uncertain Covenant a Purchaser of an Inheritance perhaps never to be enjoyed a Priest sanctifying none by his Sacrifice a thing we would not ascribe to a wiseman in a far more easie undertaking If Mr. W. shall say that Christ is certain that the Elect will perform the condition required we shall demand whether this certainty doth arise from their wills or his will If he say from their wills and his fore-sight of their well using of their natural abilities to fulfil the condition required he shakes hands with Papists and Arminians who make our Election and Redemption to be ex praevisa fide A conceit that hath been confuted over and over if from his own will because he hath purchased Faith for them then he obtained more by his death then a conditional promise § 13. Fifthly
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
to all the consequences of his debts In this sence our Formal Justification is by the gracious sentence of the Gospel terminated upon our Consciences but otherwise intrinsecally and formally the payment of our debt is our real discharge I shall grant him That the death of Christ doth justifie us onely virtually but yet I affirm That the satisfaction in his death being performed and accepted for us doth justifie us formally for the actual payment of a debt is that which formally makes him that was the debtor no debtor And therefore Christ dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonima's in Scripture phrase Rom. 5.8 9 10. Object But against this some have alledged that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 where he saith That Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the Righteousness of God in him Whence they would infer That the laying of our sins on Christ is onely an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Whereunto we Answer 1 That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause As when it is said That light is let in that darkness might be expelled where the immission of light is formally the expulsion of darkness 2 Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us do differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God which was when God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them before the word of Reconciliation was given and therefore before they believed Vers. 19. 3 Though the imputation of our sin to Christ and so the non-imputation thereof to us have an antecedency in respect of imputation of Righteousness to us yet it is of nature onely and not of time For though it be objected That we were not then and therefore Righteousness could not be imputed unto us yet it follows not They might as well object Our sins were not then Ergo They could not be imputed unto Christ whereas in this business of Justification God calleth things that are not as though they were But if Mr. W. had shewn what it is that formally justifies us besides the satisfaction made in Christs death somewhat more might have been spoken to it § 7. The close of this Paragraph is such a dirty puddle that I intended to have stept over it in silence seeing it is so hard to touch pitch or pollution and not be defiled with it but yet for their sakes that do not know 〈◊〉 I shall stay the Reader a little whilest I wash off that dirt which he hath thrown upon me and others They are credulous souls I will assure you that will be drawn by such decoyes as these into Schism and Faction to the hardning and discomforting of more hearts in one hour then the Opinion it self should it obtain will do good to while the world stands I dare not allow my self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to pay him in his own coyn having perswaded my heart to follow better examples even his who when he was reviled reviled not again 1 Pet. 2.23 And theirs who being reproached returned blessing 1 Cor. 4.12 In these few words there are a heap of slanders packt together both against my self and others and which is more grievous to be born against the truths and ways of God which we adhere to 1. They that do embrace this Doctrine which I have taught are aspersed with credulity and levity I do verily believe there is not one of my charge but is able to say as the Samaritans John 4.42 We believe not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves c. I dare say they are better setled then to be shaken with the sophistry of this Assailant I am sure both they and many more will bear me witness how frequently I do admonish them of taking up matters of Faith upon trust and credit it being Idolatry in a high degree to give the most Spiritual Worship of God viz. Our Faith to a weak and sinful man He that believes a truth upon a Humane account is no better Christian then he that doth believe a lie Let the prudent judge whether they are not more justly obnoxious to this censure of abusing the credulity of simple souls who will not endure that their hearers should bring their Doctrines to the touchstone The tyranny and usurpation of the Popish Priests is far more excusable then the affected domination of some of ours for they believe that their Church is infallible and cannot erre ours confess that they are fallible and may erre and yet expect subscription to their Dictates no less then to the Canon it self It is held a piaculum to question or debate what ever they say 2. It is but an unhandsome character he hath given my Arguments which he calls decoyes The Apostle I take it hath Englished his French Eph. 4.14 The sleight of men who lie in wait to deceive I dare say he knows me better then in cold blood to accuse me of driving on such a devillish trade as wittingly to deceive mens precious souls And therefore I shall call in no other Compurgator then his own Conscience § 8. As for his charge of Schisme and Faction I am not carefull to answer it being the usuall foam of passionate men who when they want Arguments to convince fall to downright railing Schisme sayes a learned man in the common manage of the word is a meer Theologicall Scar-crow wherewith they who uphold a party in Religion seek to fright away others from enquiring into and closing with that which they doe oppose Both this and the other are most frequently in their mouthes who are deepest in the guilt that is imported by them Ahab by his sins brought down Plagues and Judgements upon Israel yet he cals Elijah the troubler of Israel 1 King 18.17 Athalia was the cheifest Traytor and yet she was the first that cryed out Treason 2 King 11.14 Tertullus was the Orator of the tumult yet he inveighs against Paul as a Ring leader of Sedition Act. 24.5 6. the Church of Rome which hath fallen from the purity of the Catholique Faith brands them for Schismaticks who refuse to continue in the same Apostasie Amongst our selves the late Innovators aspersed all those with Faction and Schisme who would not prostitute their Consciences to the Wils of men and to this day ignorant and prophane persons think all them to be Factious and Schismaticks who live more strictly and religiously then themselves I must needs say they are lesse to be blamed seeing Professors and Ministers do give them such an evill example § 9. I confesse though in common use Schisme and
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
as yet hath not looked into the tenth part of either As for the Jewish Doctors I suppose no man will think them competent Judges of Gospel verities and I must confesse that too many of our Christian Writers are leavened over-much with a Jewish legal spirit However if he had pointed to the Authors that make this Observation I should have weighed the grounds whereon they lay it the names of men though never so learned weigh lighter then a feather in matters of Faith If hee took up his Observation upon trust from Grotius as I suspect he did I shall presume once more to advice him to take heed of tampering with the Notions of that learned Apostate § 9. I have shewed already that sundry Godly and Learned men are of another mind who exclude all manner of Conditions from the New Covenant and consequently do make Faith a part of the Covenant and not the means to bring us into Covenant to which there might be added many more as Luther The Promises of the Law are conditionall promising life not freely but to such as fulfill the Law and therefore they leave mens Consciences in doubt for no man fulfilleth the Law But the Promises of the New Testament have no such Condition joyned unto them nor require any thing of us nor depend upon any Condition of our worthinesse but bring and give unto us freely Forgivenesse of sins Grace Righteousnesse and Life everlasting for Christs sake c. Melancton speaks as fully to the purpose Men commonly saies he doe imagine that the Gospell is a conditionall Promise but this conceit is to be rooted out of them The Gospell offers remission of sins and Eternal Life without the Condition of our works And again Our Obedience is neither the Cause nor the Condition for which wee are accepted before God So P. Martyr Wee deny sayes he That the Covenant of God concerning the remission of sinnes hath any Condition annexed unto it And Olevian The whole frame or substance of the New Covenant is without any Condition Estius puts this question How the New Testament can be called a Covenant seeing it contains onely a most free promise whereas Covenants do consist of conditions on both parts We may not answer says he that good works are the condition thereof seeing that works themselves are contained in the promise of the New Testament But says he the word Berith doth not onely signifie a Covenant in a strict sense which consists of mutual conditions but it single promise which is free from all conditions and such a Covenant is that which we call the New Testament viz. Promissio Dei prorsus absoluta gratuita to wit That promise of God which is altogether free and absolute With him agrees Dr. Ames who addes That the New Covenant is more properly called a Testament then a Covenant because a Will or Testament bequeaths Legacies without any office or condition of the Legatees And Beza The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Gal. 3.14 doth not signifie says he any promise but that which is altogether free in which respect it is opposed to the Law for the promises of the Law have conditions annexed to them and therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby the New Covenant is signified is better rendred Promise then Covenant But to avoide proliâ—ity I shall desire the Reader at his leisure to peruse Junius his Second Oration De foedere novo prefixt to his Enarrations on the four first Psalms who being so great a Linguist and Lawyer his Judgement in this point ought the more to be regarded It may be Mr. B. and Mr. W. will place them but in the form of ignorant and unstudied Divines Though they do it hath been sufficiently confirmed with the authority of a greater Doctor And if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater 1 John 5.9 § 10. The Scriptures which Mr. W. hath brought do no whit help him as Heb. 11.16 where it is said God was not ashamed to be called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were believers Ergo says he God is not the God of any before they do believe He might reason as well a Father acknowledgeth and stands by his son when he is in distress Ergo He was not his father before The scope of the place is not to shew when God did become their Father but rather the faithfulness and condescendence of God towards his people in their low estate for though they were pilgrims and strangers in the world hated and despised of all yet God did own and honor them See Psal. 105.12 13 14 15. So that in 1 Pet. 2.10 where the Apostle speaking to the Saints says In times past you were not a people but are now the people of God is to be understood in reference to the external administration of the Covenant and not the real participation or interest in the blessings of it Indeed in the first consideration none are the people of God but they that do profess the fear and worship of the true God who walk in the name i. e. In the Laws and Ordinances of God In which respect the Elect before Faith are said to have been without God in the world Eph. 2.12 And in this sense all that do profess the truth are the people of God though many of them are Hypocrites who are therefore said to be of Israel though they are not Israel and some that are but fruitless branches are notwithstanding said to be in Christ which must be understood in respect of external profession and not of internal implantation But in the later consideration none are the people of God but they that do belong to the Election of Grace who are the Spiritual Seed and Israel in truth And thus all the Elect whether called or uncalled are the people of God though before conversion they have not the comfort yet they have a good right and title unto all the purchases of Christs death God knows them to be his people though they know not that he is their God CHAP. XXI Wherein the remaining Arguments which Mr. Woodbridge hath brought to prove That the New Covenant is not an absolute Promise and that the Elect have no right to the Covenant before they believe are answered MR. W. towards the close of his Book hath cast in three or four Arguments more for the confirmation of his Opinion which he thinks superfluous I might saith he spare the pains of further proof And truly I think so too unless he had bestowed his pains in a better cause I must tell him That when he hath said all that he can in defence of this cause he will at last sit down a looser for when the day shall come which shall try every mans work of what sort it is this hay and stubble of mans righteousness and mens pleadings for it shall be consumed to ashes though I am