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
by Justification we are to understand a Justification in the Court of Conscience or the Evidence and Declaration of a Justification already past before God So that Faith is said to justifie us not because it doth justifie us before God but because it doth declare to our Consciences that we are justified Now because this report is very imperfect I shall crave the patience of the Reader whilest I declare our Judgement a little more fully concerning this Matter together with the Grounds and Reasons that do uphold it and then I shall return to secure this Answer against the Exceptions Mr. W. hath made against it But first I shall shew the several Explications which Divines have given of his Proposition A man is justified by Faith CHAP. VI. The several Opinions of Divines touching the meaning of this Position A man is justified by Faith THe Question depending between me and Mr. W. is not Whether we are justified by Faith which the Scripture frequently affirms and no man that I know denies it Papists and Protestants Orthodox and Socinians Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants do unanimously consent That we are justified by Faith All the difference is about the Sense and Meaning of this Proposition A man is justified by Faith Whether Faith therein be to be taken Properly or Tropically For though there be great variety in Expression amongst Divines concerning this Matter yet all their several Opinions and Explications may be reduced unto these two heads The first takes Faith in sensu proprio for the act or habit of Faith the other takes Faith metonymicè relativè for the object of Faith i. e. The obedience and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. § 2. Our Protestant Divines who have hitherto been counted Orthodox do take Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith in a Tropical and Fâ—gurative Sence as thus A man is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by Faith i. e. By the Obedience and Righteousness of Jesus Christ in whom we believe and upon whom we relie for Life and Righteousness Nor is this any unusual Trope either in Scripture or in other Authors to put Habitum vel actum pro objecto as Rom. 8.24 Hope that is seen is not hope i. e. The thing that is seen is not hoped for Christ is oftentimes called our Hope our Joy our Love c. because he is the object of these Acts and Affections when the same thing is attributed distinctly both to the act and the object it must needs be attributed to one in a proper and to the other in an improper sence and therefore says Dr. Downham When Justification is attributed to Faith it cannot be attributed in the same sence as to the death and obedience of Christ in propriety of Speech but of necessity it is to be understood by a Metonymy Faith being put for the object of Faith which is the Righteousness of Christ c. And holy Pemble If we list not to be contentious it is plain enough saith he that in those places where the Apostle treats of Justification by Faith he means the Grace of God in Jesus Christ opposing Works and Faith that is the Law and the Gospel the Righteousness of the Law to the Righteousness of the Gospel which is no other but the Righteousness of Christ. Thus saith he Faith is taken Gal. 3.23 before Faith came i. e. Before Christ came and the clear exhibition of his Righteousness And in this sence as another hath observed it is used at least thirteen times in this Chapter where the Apostle expresly treats of our Justification before God Albertus Pighius though a Papist was so far convinced of this truth by reading of Calvins Institutions that he acknowledged If we speak formally and properly we are justified neither by Faith nor Charity but by the onely Righteousness of Christ communicated to us and by the onely mercy of God forgiving our sins § 3. Some of our Divines who do utterly deny That Faith in this Question is taken sensu proprio or that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of believing is imputed to us for Righteousness do yet ascribe an instrumentallity or inferior causality unto Faith it self in our Justification before God They say That we are justified by Faith instrumentally and relatively which terms I confess sound harshly in my ears but I hope I shall be excused if I do not understand them seeing a far learneder man then my self hath professed That they were not very intelligible to him That Faith is taken relatively in this Question of Justification to wit For the object it relates unto Christ and his Righteousness I do readily grant but that it justifies us Relatively I cannot assent to it for it seems to me to carry this sence with it either 1 that Faith doth procure our Justification though not by its own worth and dignity yet through the vertue and merit of its object As the Papists say of Works That they do justifie and save us tincta sanguine Christi being dipped in the Blood of Christ Or 2 that Faith together with Christ its object doth make us just in the sight of God whereby it is made a social cause with the blood of Christ which shall be sufficiently disproved anon Again that Faith is a passive Instrument of our Justification to wit such an Instrument whereby we receive and apply this benefit to our selves was shewn before but that it is an active efficacious Instrument to make us just and righteous in the sight of God is no part of my Creed For 1. it seems to me a contradiction to say That Faith is not to be taken sensu proprio but metonymicè for the object thereof and yet say That we are justified by Faith instrumentally for it is not the object but the act of Faith which is an Instrument Faith considered as an Instrument is taken sensu proprio and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere which they disclaim must be said to justifie 2. Mr. Baxter in my judgement disputes rationally against this notion If Faith saith he be the Instrument of our Justification it is the Instrument either of God or man not of man for Justification is Gods act he is the sole Justifier Rom. 3.26 man doth not justifie himself not of God for it is not God that believeth To which I adde that God neither needs nor is capable of using an Instrument in the act of justifying for though he useth Instruments to declare and reveal this Grace to sinners yet not to will it to particular persons the acts of his will are not wrought by any Organ or Instrument without himself 3. By making Faith the Instrument of our Justification Justification is made the Effect and Faith the Cause and so consequently a man shall be said to justifie himself whereas the Scripture every where ascribes our Justification unto God and Christ making
of the Act or of the Object of Faith We have shewed before that the Apostle in his disputes about Justification in these fore-mentioned Epistles where he opposeth Faith to Works he takes Faith in a Tropical sense for the Object and not the Act of Faith for else there had been no ground for him to make any opposition at all between Faith and Works and in affirming That we are justified by Faith he had contradicted himself in saying That we are not justified by Works seeing Faith or the Act of Believing is a work of ours no less then love And therefore it is evident that the Apostle when he concludes That we are justified by Faith and not by Works understands by Faith the Object thereof to wit Righteousness imputed and not inherent which by way of distinction and opposition to the other he calls the Righteousness of God because it is out of us in Christ God-man The reason why the Apostle calls the Object by the name of the Act Christs Righteousness by the name of Faith besides the elegancy of the Trope is because Faith ascribes all unto Christ it being an act of self-dereliction a kinde of holy despair a denying and renouncing of all fitness and worthiness in our selves a going unto Christ looking towards him and a roulling of our selves upon his Alsufficiency So that in the Apostles sense we deny not That Faith justifieth in the sight of God Faith I say taken objectively to wit For Christ and his Righteousness it is for his Merits and Satisfaction alone that we are accounted Just and Righteous at Gods Tribunal But if Faith be taken properly for the Act of Believing we say indeed That it onely evidenceth that Justification which we have in Christ. Nor is this any contradiction to the Holy Ghost who ascribes our Justification in the sight of God to Chrâ—st alone § 2. Next he calls it A most unsound Assertion That Faith doth evidence our Justification before Faith Is the Apostles definition of Faith Heb. 11.1 Faith is the evidence of things not seen An unsound Assertion Though some do ascribe more to Faith then an Act of evidencing yet I never met with any one before that did totally deny this use thereof All the knowledge that we have of our Justification is onely by Faith seeing it cannot be discerned by Sence or Reason either we have no evidence of our Justification and consequently do live without hope or if we have it is Faith that doth evidence it to our souls Now let our Justification be when it will if Faith doth evidence it it will follow That our Justification was before that Evidencing act of Faith for actuâ— pendet ab objecto the Object is before the Act. But I will not anticipate Mr. Woodbridges Reasons § 3. If sayes he Faith doth evidence our Justification it is either improperly as an effect doth argue the cause as laughing and crying may he said to evidence reason in a Childe c. Or else properly and thus either immediately and axiomatically or remotely and syllogistically 1 Faith doth not evidence Justification improperly as the Effect doth argue the Cause I shall readily grant him that Faith doth not justifie evidentially as a mark sign or token but as a knowledge and adherence unto Christ our Justifier as that Organ or Instrument whereby we look not upon our Faith but upon Christ our Righteousness and by the same Faith do cleave unto him They that make Faith a condition of our Justification use it but as a sign or as an argument affected to prove That a person is justified seeing that where one is the other is also where there is Faith there is Justification and for this cause innumerable other signs and marks are brought in to evidence this sign which are more obscure and difficult to be known then Faith it self nay which cannot be known to be effects of Blessedness but by Faith whereby poor souls either walk in darkness live in a doubting and uncertain condition all their days or else compass themselves about with sparks of their own kindling and walk in the light of their own fire fetching their comfort from Faith and not by Faith from Christ. Though I might fairly pass by this Branch of his Dilemma it being none of my Tenent and favored more by his own then my opinion yet I shall briefly give my fence of his Reasons That Faith doth not evidence Justification as a sign § 4. His first Reason is because then Justification by Faith would not necessarily be so much as Justification in our Consciences A Christian may have Faith and yet not have the evidence that he himself is justified Many Christians have that in them which would prove them justified whiles yet their Consciences do accuse and condemn them To which I Answer 1. That Mr. W. may be pleased to consider how well this agrees with that passage of his Pag. 15. Where he alledgeth the words of the Apostle 1 John 3.20 to prove That if our hearts do condemn us God doth much more condemn us 2. I should grant him That if Faith did evidence our Justification onely as a sign or some remote effect thereof like other works of Sanctification it would be but a dark and unsatisfying evidence 3. Whereas he sayes That doubting Christians have something in them that would prove them justified either it is something that precedes Faith or something that follows Faith or else Faith it self First Nothing that precedes Faith doth prove a man justified secondly Nothing that follows Faith is so apt to prove it as Faith it self because it is the first of all Inherent Graces it is by Faith that we know our Love Patience c. to be Fruits unto God whereas some make doubting to be a sign of Faith they may as well make darkness a sign of light it being in its own nature contrary thereunto and therefore it must be proved by Faith it self 4. Though a true Christian may have a doubting accusing Conscience as doubtless there is flesh and corruption in their Consciences as well as in their other faculties and there is no sin whereunto we have more and stronger temptations then to unbelief yet wheresoever there is Faith there is some evidence of this Grace as in the least spark of fire there is light though not so much as in a flame And the least twinkling Star gives us some light though not enough to dispel the darkness or to make it day There are several degrees of Faith there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strong Faith and a weak Faith Now the least degree of Faith carries some light and evidence therewith and according to the measure of Faith is the evidence and perswasion of our Justification § 5. Secondly He urgeth If Faith did evidence Justification as an effect of it then we might as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to
be justified by our Faith I see no absurdity at all to say That Faith is from Justification causally and Justification by Faith evidentially That Grace which justifies us is the Cause and Fountain of all good things whatsoever both of Spiritual and Temporal Blessings and more especially of Faith 2 Pet. 1.1 Phil. 1.29 Yet doth it not follow That We must invert the order of the Gospel and instead of saying Believe and thou shalt be justified we must say hence forward Thou art justified therefore believe 1 Because it is not the priviledge of all men to whom we Preach but onely of the Elect of God And 2 because we know not who are justified no more then who are elected though Faith be an effect or sign of Election yet it doth not follow that we must say to any Thou art elected therefore believe 3 When the cause is not notior effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause as in the present case § 6. Thirdly He loads it with this seeming absurdity That then it will unavoidably follow That we are justified by works as well as by Faith for works are an effect of Justification as well as Faith 1 It follows unavoidably from his own opinion For if Faith be taken in a proper sence for the Act of Believing it follows That we are justified by a work of our own or if Faith be the condition of Justification it will follow likewise That we are no more justified by Faith then by other works as Repentance Charity c. Which Mr. W. and others of his strain do make the conditions of their supposed Justification so that he is like to father the Childe which he hath sought to lay at our doors 2 It is not denied That Works do declare and evidence our Justification where the Apostle denies our Justification to be by Works he speaks of our real and formal Justification in the sight of God which he affirms is by Faith scil Objectively taken and not of the declaring or evidencing of our Justification which Saint James in his Epistle attributes to Works in reference to men and other Scriptures to Faith in reference to the Conscience of the person justified Romans 1.17 Galatians 2.16 3 Though works be the effect of justification as well as faith yet it will no follow that works do evidence our justificationas well as faith doth 1 Because every effect is not apt to evidence its cause especially when the same effect may proceed from severall causes as smoak is not so certaine an evidence of fire as light and heat is because steems and mists are so like to smoak so works do not evidence our justification so clearly and certainly 〈◊〉 Faith doth because works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality c. as those Heathens have performed 2 Because every effect doth not evidence to every faculty a like but this to one and that to another as for instance forme or Physiognomy doth evidence a man to sence but yet reason requires another manner of evidence so conscience requires a better evidence of our justification then works can give Workâ— do evidence it in the judgement of charity and before men but they do not evidence it in the judgement of infallibility or with that clearnesse and demonstrative certainty which the conscience requires conscience will need a better evidence then works can give Paul could plead his works before men 2 Cor. 1.12 which yet he never mentions in the pleas of his conscience towards God and that which conscience dares not plead before God can bee no good evidence unto conscience § 7. The other horn of his Dilemma will be frayd as easily as the former Faith saith he doth not evidence justification properly for then it must doe it either immediately and Axiomatically as it is an assent to this Proposition I am justified or else remotely and syllogistically by drawing a particular conclusion of our own justification out of generall propositions But Faith doth not evidence our justification Axiomatically c. For 1 There is no such thing written the Scripture doth no where say Thou Paul thou Peter or thou Thomas art justified Ergo Justification cannot be evidenced by Faith immediately Mr. W. here mistakes the nature of true justifying Faith who it seems conceives it to be a bare intellectuall assent to the truth of a Proposition such as Devils and Reprobates may attaine unto contrary to all Orthodox Divines who doe place Faith more in the Will then in the Understanding Justifying Faith essentially include 1. An assent of the understanding to the truth of the Scriptures revealing the sole-sufficiency of Christ for the reconciliation of sinners and the non-imputation of sin as also the will and command of God that all men should beleeve in him alone for life and salvation 2 a Fiduciall adherence and reliance of the will upon the same Christ the understanding being made effectually to assent and subscribe to the fore-mentioned propositions sub ratione veri the will is also powerfully drawne to accept imbrace and adhere unto Christ sub natione boni Our Divines doe include both these acts in the definition of Faith making it to be fiducialis assensus or assensus cum gustu such an assent unto the truths of the Gospell as that withall the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same and thereupon â—esteth and relieth upon Christ for all the benefits of his death They make the principall act of Faith to be the reliance of the heart or wil upon Jesus Christ and therefore they determine that the object of Justifying Faith is not a Proposition or Axiom but Christ the mercy of God in Christ on whom whosoever rests and roules himselfe upon the call of the Gospel hath a certain evidence of his Interest in Christ and in all the treasures of righteousnesse and remission that are in him according to the degree of his affiance or his taste of sweetnesse in Christ is his evidence or assurance of his owne interest and propriety in him There is no sense that doth apprehend its object with more certainty then that of Tasting as he that tastes hony knows both the sweetnesse thereof and that he himselfe injoyes it So he that tastes the sweetnesse of the Gospell Promises and of that precious Grace which is therein revealed knows his interest and propriety therein It is observed of Jonathan 1 Sam. 14.27 When he tasted a little hony his eyes were inlightned and the Psalmist exhorts us to taste and see how good the Lord is The soule that tastes i. e. beleeves the Gospell and the goodnesse of God therein revealed to sinners sees and knowes his interest therein for all manner of sweetnesse is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing that causeth it unto which the nearer our interest is the greater is the sweetnesse which we find in it The Soul cannot taste
deserted a Congregation in New England whereof he was Pastor to become a Parish Parson in the Old and not onely so but hath stood to maintaine that Parishes are true Churches It is like Barford in Old England is if not a purer Church yet a better Parsonage then Andover in the New We are not much beholding to New England for such Reformers 2 If we may judge of a mans principles by his practise we should then believe that he himself holds Universal Justification at least within the bounds of his own Parish for as I am informed he makes no distinction at all in this behalf I am ashamed to hear men to talk of Reformation who tread Antipodes to it especially when they have liberty to follow the dictates of their Consciences But 3 I had thought he had known that de occultis non judicat ecclesia and that Election and Justification are not the rule of admitting persons into Church Communion but their found Profession and suitable Conversation A Reprobate or unjustified person may lawfully be admitted into and an Elect person may as lawfully be excluded out of a Church I dare not say That the excommunicated person at Corinth and others under that censure were not justified The evidence we have of mens Justification is but the judgement of rational charity and not of infallibility But enough of this I shall return again to his Brother B. W. who I suppose will not own such irrational consequences § 11. The other part of his contradiction is That Faith cannot evidence Justification Syllogistically to wit By the discourse of Conscience after this or the like manner He that believeth is justified but I believe Ergo I am justified Now says Mr. W. magisterially enough I affirm that it is impossible for a man by Faith to evidence syllogistically that he is justified before Faith Though I honor him highly I cannot rest satisfied with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what Reason doth he bring for his confident affirmation 1. Because there cannot be found a medium before Faith it self Ans. Nor is it needful there should 1 It is sufficient that Faith itself is the medium as thus He that believeth was justified before Faith but I do believe Ergo. The Major is proved because his sins were laid on Christ and thereby non-imputed to him 2 To imagine any other medium before Faith is frivolous for that were to require that Faith should evidence before Faith had a being 3 Why may not Faith be a medium to evidence our Justification before Faith as well as our Election before Faith Seeing the same word which affirms That all Believers were elected before the Foundations of the World affirms also That the Elect without exception are discharged and acquitted of their sins Rom. 8.33 Shall we reason thus Our Election cannot be evidenced before Faith Ergo We were not elected before Faith Mr. Woodbridges Arguing makes as much against evidencing Election before Faith as against the evidencing of our Justification before Faith Because there is no sort of persons of whom ELECTION can be affirmed universally but onely such as do believe seeing all the world is distributed into Believers and unbelievers but ELECTION cannot be affirmed of unbelievers universally It proves indeed That neither Election nor Justification are evident to us before we believe it doth not prove That by Faith we cannot evidence syllogistically that we were both elected and justified before we did believe As for that mad Syllogism as he calls it which follows All unbelievers are justified but I am an unbeliever Ergo. It is the off-spring of his own brain hatcht on purpose to make the matter ridiculous But we must excuse the luxuriousness of his wit seeing Nullum est magnum ingenium sine mixtura insaniae His other Syllogism which he hath framed to evidence Justification by Election as thus All the Elect are justified But I am elected Ergo was framed in the same mould A meer man of clouts which he himself created to shew his valor in beating of him We do not teach men to evidence Justification by Election but both Election and Justification by their Faith proceeding from the Effect to the Cause as we needs must when the Effect is more evident then the Cause Though I like not the Argument yet by his leave the Major is so far from being utterly false that it is justified by the express Testimony of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 But this is besides the purpose That miserable circle into which he pretends the poor restless doubting soul is conjured by our Doctrine is but a vertigo and whimsie in his own Pericrany We do neither bid men evidence their Justification by their Election nor their Election by their Justification but both Election and Justification by a stedfast adherence and reliance upon Jesus Christ and from thence to reason out our particular interest in these Blessed Priviledges as we do the Being of Causes by the proper Effects which flow from them § 12. His next Argument against Faiths evidencing Justification syllogistically if it be put into the scale of an impartial Judgement will appear as light as the former It runs thus If we are said to be justified by Faith because Faith doth evidence Justification syllogistically then we may be said to be justified by Sence and Reason as well as by Faith which is absurd This Consequence indeed is very absurd for the conclusion is of Faith and so adjudged by the Schools if the Major be of Faith else this conclusion I shall rise again from the dead were not of Faith because it is inferred partly by Sence and Reason as thus All men shall rise again I am a man Ergo I shall rise again Here the Major onely is of Faith the Minor is of Sence and yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith and not of Sence So in this Syllogism He that believes is justified But I do believe Ergo I am justified Though the Assumption be an act of Sence or spiritual Experience yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith because the Major is of Faith For though in both these Deductions Sence and Reason are made use of yet they are but subfervient Instruments and not the Authors of the Conclusion § 13. Mr. W. hath added a third Argument to prove That Justification by Faith is not meerly a Justification in our Consciences which I question not will prove as unsuccessful as the rest But by the way I cannot chuse but take notice that his spirit of contradiction is somewhat allayed For hitherto he hath contended That Justification by Faith is not in any sence a Justification in Conscience now he tells us it is not meerly a Justification in Conscience and if this will satisfie him it is like we shall agree for before we have shewn that when Faith is objectively taken Justification by Faith is Justification by Christ and in the sight of God and not onely in the Conscience And
this censure when he hath weighed the reasons I shall give That Faith cannot be said to Justifie by way of disposition or as a passive condition morally disposing us for Justification CHAP. IX That Faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie us for Justification IN regard that the main Point in difference between me and Mr. W. lyes at the bottom of this Answer I shall make it appear we are not said to be Justified by Faith in a Scripture sence because Faith is required of us as a passive condition to qualifie us for justification in the sight of God § 1. That Interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to Faith in the businesse of our Justification then to other works of sanctification cannot be true The reason is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.16.3.11 But to interpret justification by faith meerly thus That Faith is a condition to quâ—lifie us for Justification gives no more to Faith then to other works of sanctification as to repentance charity and all other duties of new obedience which Mr. W. and others of the same affirmation make to be necessary antecedent conditions of Justification Mr. B. includes all works of obedience to evangelical precepts in the definition of Faith in which senâ—e I presume no Papist will deny that we are justified by Faiâ—h alone taking it as he doth for fides formata or faith animated with charity and other good works And therefore Bellarm. disputing against Justification by Faith alone sayes that if wee could be perswaded that Faith doth justifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Justificationem which is granted him if Faith be an antecedent federal condition disposing us for it then we would never deny that love fear hope c. did justifie as well as Faith Dr. Hammond sayes expressely That neither Paul nor James doe exclude or separate faithfull actions or the acts of faith from Faith or the condition of Justification but absolutely require them as the onely things by which we are justified Which in another place he goes about to prove by this argument That without which we are not justified and by which joyned with Faith we are justified is not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our Justification but required together with Faith as the only things by which as by a condition a man is justified But without acts of Faith or faithfull actions we are not justified and by them wee are justified and not by Faith onely Therefore faithfull actions or acts of Faith are not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our Justification but required together with Faith as the onely things by which as by a condition a man is justified It is evident that he and other abetters to this notion attribute no more to Faith in our Justification then to other works of sanctification Now this was witnessed against as an unsound opinion a pernicious error and utterly repugnant to the sacred Scriptures c. by Mr. Cranford amongst the London Subscribers Decemb. 14. 1647 and by Mr. W. himselfe if I mistake not amongst the Subscribers in other Counties It seems by Mr. W. they were bewitched when they gave their hands unto that Testimony § 2. That Interpretation of this phrase which gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature I meane such as may be found in naturall and unregenerate men is not true The Reason is because a man may have such works and yet not be justified But to interpret Justification by Faith that Faith is a necessary antecedent condition of our Justification gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature as to sight of sin legall sorrow c. which have been found in naturall and unregenerate men as in Cain Saul Judas c. I presume Mr. W. will say that these are necessary antecedent conditions in every one that is justified for if these be conditions disposing us to Faith and Faith a condition disposing us to Justification then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification for causae causae est causa causati if these legall works are conditions of Faith they must be according to Mr. Woodbridges Tenet conditions of Justification and consequently they are in eodem genere causae with Faith it selfe quod erat demonstrandum § 3. 3 That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification but Faith considered as a meer passive condition is not in the sence of our adversaries a proper efficient meritorious cause of Justification therefore wee are not said to bee justified by Faith as a passive condition or qualification required to make us capable of Justification The assumption is granted by our opponents at least verbo tenus who doe therefore call it a meer sine qua non which Logicians make to be causa ociosa nihil efficiens and a passive condition to exclude it from all manner of causality in producing the effect though for my own part I look upon conditions in contracts and covenants as proper efficient meritorious causes of the things covenanted which do produce their effects though not by their innate worth yet by vertue of the compact and agreement made between the parties covenanting But of this we shal have occasion to speak more by and by It remains only that I should clear the major that That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification which appears 1. By the use of these Propositions by and through in ordinary speech which note that the thing to which they are attributed is either a meritorious or instrumentall cause of the effect that follows as when we say a Souldier was raised by his valor it imports that his valor was the meritorious cause of his preferment and when we say a Tradesman lives by his Trade our meaning is that his Trade is the means or instrument by which he gets his living So here in the case before us when it is said a man is justified by Faith it implyes that Faith is either the meritorious or instrumentall cause of his Justification as if it be taken objectively for Christ and his merits it is the meritorious cause of our Justification in foro dei or if it be taken properly for the act of believing it is the instrumental cause of our Justification in foro conscientiae 2. From the contrary phrase as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by Works and by the Law without doubt his intent was to exclude Works from any causal influx into our Justification Now that which he denies to Works he ascribes to Faith and therefore Justification by Faith implies that Faith in his sense hath a true causality or proper efficiency in our
Justification 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
Explication of the Epistle to the Ephesians upon those words Chap. 2.5 He hath quickned us together with Christ says That all the Elect who are the Members of Christ when he by his death had expiated their sins were freed from the guilt of eternal death and obtained a right to eternal life Chamier hath much to this purpose Nobis potius est persuasissimum c. We are most certainly perswaded that our sins are pardoned before we do believe for we deny that Infants do believe and yet Infants have their sins forgiven And a little before viz. Chap. 6. of the same Book I deny saith he that Faith is the cause of our Justification for then our Justification would not be of Grace but of our selves but Faith is said to justifie not because it effecteth Justification but because it is effected in the justified person And in another place to the same purpose Faith doth neither merit obtain nor begin our Justification for if it did then Faith should go before Justification both in nature and time which may in no wise be granted for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification now there is no Sanctification but after Justification Quae re natura prior which is really and in its own nature before it Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier saith That Faith concurs no otherwise to Justification then in respect of the passive application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ unto himself but not in respect of the active application whereby God applieth unto man the Righteousness of Christ which application is in the minde of God and consequently from eternity Dr. Macouvius Professor of Divinity at Franeka hath a whole Determination to this purpose to prove that Justificacation actively considered or as it is the act of God blotting out our sins and imputing the Righteousness of Christ unto us goes before Faith Indeed he makes it to be not an immanent but a transient declared act which the Lord did when he first promised to send his Son to be our Mediator Gen. 3.15 Though one of our late Writers mentions this Doctors Opinion with much contempt and oscitancy calling his Assertions Strange senceless and abhorred which is the less to be regarded seeing he usually metes out the same measure unto all men else whose notions do not square with his own mould as to Dr. Twisse Mr. Walker and them that hold the imputation of Christs active Righteousness whom he calls A sort of ignorant and unstudied Divines c. Yet as he hath merited fairer usage amongst Christians for his other Labors So I dare say his Arguments in this particular will not seem so weak and ridiculous as Mr. Baxter maâ—â— them to an indifferent Reader that shall compare them with the Exceptions which he hath shaped unto them sharp Censures are but dull Answers Dr. Ames his Colâ—eague sayes no less who in his Marrow of Divinity having defined Justification to be the gracious Sentence of God by which he doth acquit us from sin and death and account us Righteous unto life he sayes That this sentence was long before in the minde of God and was pronounced when Christ our Head arose from the dead 2 Cor. 5.19 And in another place All they for whom Christ in the intention of God hath made satisfaction are reconciled unto God I might produce many others that are of eminent note who have asserted That all the Elect are reconciled and justified before they believe Now were all these Champions of Truth a pack of Antinomians and Libertines Hath Mr. Woodbridges humanity no better language to bestow upon them If he shall say he doth not mean them yet his reproaches do fall upon them for if Titius be an Antinomian for saying That the Elect are justified before they do believe Sempronius is an Antinomian who affirms the same § 6. Mr. Burges a man somewhat profuse in this kinde of Rhetorick seems willing to excuse some of those fore-mentioned Divines who have asserted the Remission of sins before Faith because they did it in a particular sence to oppose the Arminians who maintain a reconciliability and not a reconciliation by the death of Christ. But I believe he is not ignorant that Divine Truths are not to be measured by mens intentions let mens ends be never so good they cannot make Error to be Truth or if they are never so corrupt they cannot make Truth to be Error Nor do they whom he calls Antinomians assert Justification before Faith in any other sence then in respect of the absolute and immutable Will of God not to deal with his people according to their sins and in respect of the full satisfaction of Jesus Christ who by that one offering of himself hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified i. e. them whose sins are purged by his blood I could shew how frequently he and others have wounded some of our most eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety through the sides of Antinomians Mr. Burges in his Book of Justif. p. 219. calls it An Antinomian Similitude to say That as a man looking on the Wall through Red Glass conceives the Wall to be of the same colour so God looking upon us in Christ seeth nothing but the Righteousness of Christ in us and no sin at all Which Similitude is used by Dr. Reynolds in his Excellent Treatise on the 110 Psalm where he doth plainly assert that Doctrine which Mr. Burges condemns for Antinomianism Mr. Baxters Character of an Antinomian will bring all our Protestant Writers under this censure For with him they are Antinomians who hold 1 That our Evangelical Righteousness is without us in Christ or performed by him and not by our selves Or 2 That Justification is a free act of God without any condition on our part for the obtaining of it Or else 3 That Justification is an Immanent act and consequently from eternity which was the Judgement of Alsted Pemble Twisse Rutherford c. Or 4 That we must not perform duty for Life and Salvation but from Life and Salvation or that we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation the end of our endeavors but obey in thankfulness and because we are justified and saved c. Now let any man who is moderately versed in our Protestant Writers but speak on whom this Arrow falls I might instance in many others but I will not put the Reader unto so much trouble § 7. My business at present is to acquit this Doctrine of Justification in foro Dei before Faith from Mr. Woodbridges charge of Antinomianism And truly I wonder that he should give it this name For 1. It hath not the least affinity with the Antinomian Tenents which as they are related by Sleiden were That the Law is not to be Preached to bring men to Repentance or unto the sight of their sins That what ever a mans life be
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
or adulti yet to all the Elect to whom the effects of the Covenant and Seals do onely really belong it is real and absolute It is no other then the Sentence of God himself declaring his non-imputation of sin unto them and their deliverance from death by Jesus Christ § 12. 2. Internally in foro Conscientiae at their effectual Vocation when the Lord by the Preaching of the Gospel doth powerfully perswade their hearts to believe in Christ for the Elect themselves before Faith have no knowledge or comfort either of Gods gracious volitions towards them or of Christs undertakings and purchases in their behalf In which respect they are said to be without Christ and without God in the world Eph. 2.12 and Gal. 4.1 They are compared to an Heir under age who differs nothing from a Servant though he be the Lord of all By Faith we come to see that everlasting love wherewith we were loved and that plenteous Redemption which Christ hath wrought for us for which cause Faith is called The evidence of things not seen Heb. 11.1 And God is said thereby to reveal his Righteousness from Heaven to us Rom. 1.17 And to reveal his Son in us Gal. 1.16 Now in this sence men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the medium or Instrument whereby the Sentence of Forgiveness is terminated in their Consciences which is daily made more plain and legible by the operation of the Spirit sealing and witnessing unto them their peace and reconciliation with God Whereas unbelievers look on God as their enemy and consequently all their life time are held in bondage through the fear of wrath A true Believer hath peace liberty and boldness towards God he looks upon all the Promises as his own inheritance interprets the Providences of God even those which Reason would construe in another sence to be Fruits of Love and not of Wrath. § 12. Now because this Declarative Sentence by Faith is like the name written in the White Stone Revel 2.17 Which no man knoweth saving he that hath it Many whom the Lord doth justifie are accounted by the world to be but Hypocrites others again are justified of men who are not justified in the sight of God the Lord therefore hath another way of justifying his people to wit In foro mundi when he shall publickly and in the hearing of the whole world pronounce that gracious sentence Come ye blessed of my Father c. Matth. 25.34 Whereunto some have referred those words of the Apostle Acts 3.19 Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. But who so pleaseth to consult with Erasmus Beza and Ludovicus de Dieu upon the place shall finde there is a great mistake in our English Translators and that no such thing was intended there by the Holy Ghost I grant that the sins of the Elect may be said to be then blotted out not that the remission of their sins shall be put off or is not compleat till the last day and till they have performed all the conditions required of them but because this gracious sentence shall be then publickly declared and shall bring forth its Eternal Effect of Life and Glory And in this sence I conceive those Scriptures may be understood which speak of our Justification as a future thing as Rom. 3.30 2.13 c. § 13. Now though we have ascribed Justification unto several times or periods yet do we not make many Justifications Declared Justification whether it be in foro Ecclesiae in foro Conscientiae or in foro mundi is not another from that in the minde of God but the same variously revealed as an Acquittance in the heart of the Creditor and in a Paper a pardon in the heart of a Prince and inrolled is one and the same this manifested and the other secret and though there are never so many Copies written forth in several hands they do not make many Acquittances or many Pardons being but the Transcripts of one Original So though God doth at sundry times and in divers manners declare his well-pleasedness towards his people yet is their Justification but one and the same which is perfect and compleat at once being his fixed and immutable will not to deal with them according to their sins but as Just and Righteous Persons By that which hath been said it doth appear in what sence we assert The Justification of Gods Elect before they believe Now what little weight there is in those Objections which are commonly brought against this Assertion will be more manifest when we have examined Mr. Woodbridges Treatise Whos 's first quarrel against us is for that as he conceives we give too little unto Faith P. 2. But as it is no disparagement to the Blood of Christ that it doth not move and incline God to love us or to will not to punish us so it is no disparagement to Faith to say That it doth not concur with the Blood of Christ in obtaining our Justification but that by apprehending the Gospel it reveals and evidenceth to us that Justification which we have in Christ the proof whereof is the task of the next Chapter wherein I doubt not but I shall be able through the help of God to put by all those wretched consequences which Mr. W. hath endeavored to father upon this Position That Faith serves to evidence to us our Justification CHAP. VIII Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Exceptions against our saying That Faith or the act of believing doth justifie no otherwise then as it reveals and evidenceth our Justification are Answered THe first Charge which he brings against this Gloss as he calls it is That it is guilty of a contradiction to the Holy Ghost It is well known sayes he that the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians sets himself on purpose to assert the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in opposition to Works The Question between him and the Jews was not Whether we are declared to be justified by Faith or Works but whether we are justified by Faith or Works in the sight of God or before God And he concludes That it is by Faith and not by Works c. Though all this be granted yet it proves no contradiction to the Holy Ghost in our Assertion We acknowledge that the Question between the Apostle and the Jews was not about the declaring of our Justification nor about the time when we are justified no nor about the condition upon which we are justified but concerning the matter of our Justification or the Righteousness whereby we are justified or by which we are accounted righteous Now the result of his dispute is That we are justified by Faith and not by Works but then the Question will be How Faith is to be taken whether sensu proprio or metonymico whether we are to understand it
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
rased out those Scriptures which ascribe our Justification unto Christ alone For my own part I see no such cause he hath to triumph unless it be in the dejection of those feeble consequences which he himself hath devised to make our Doctrine odious which we have shewn before are as remote from our principles as the East is from the West I confess neither he nor I are competent Judges in our own cause let the Godly Reader judge between us and hold fast that which comes nearest to the Analogy of Faith I shall now address my self to sâ—an the force of those Arguments he hath brought to prove That the Elect are not justified in the sight of God before they believe CHAP. X. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges first Argument against Justification before Faith taken from the Nature of Justification is answered HIs first Argument is drawn from the Nature of Justification Which sayes he is the absolution of a sinner from condemnation by that gracious sentence and signal promise in the Gospel He that believes shall not enter into condemnation The Argument he hath cast into this frame If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word which may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he is in unbelief then no unbelieving sinner is justified But there is no act of grace declared and published in the Word which is a legal discharge of the sinner whilest he remains in unbelief Ergo. Whereunto I answer 1. That his Assumption is false for the Gospel or New Covenant is a published or declared discharge of all the Elect. The sum of which is That God hath transacted all their sins upon Jesus Christ and that Christ by that offering of his hath made a full and perfect atonement for them whereby the whole spiritual Israel are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God as of old carnal Israel were Typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Priest Levit. 16.30 Now though they cannot plead it before they believe yet is it a real discharge because it frees them from condemnation As a Pardon granted by a Prince is a legal discharge though the Malefactor doth not know of it 2. The Sequel or Consequence of the Major stands upon a sandy bottom a postulatum that will not be granted to wit That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a published declared act We have shewed before That Justification consists in the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of Righteousness which is an act of the Minde or Will of God It is a gross non sequitur God doth not declare his non-imputing of sin to his Elect before they believe Ergo He doth account and esteem them sinners The Question is not whether this gracious sentence of Absolution be declared but whether it be not in the Brest of God before it be declared or whether this immanent act of God doth not secure the sinner from condemnation If so then there is Justification though there be no published declared sentence As Gods saying in his heart That he would never drown the world any more Gen. 8.21 did sufficiently secure the world from the danger of an other deluge though he had never declared it so Gods will not to punish secures a person from condemnation though this security be not declared § 2. They are but feeble proofs wherewith he hath backed hâ—s Assertion That Justification is onely by the promise as a declared discharge We are not says he as if he saâ—e in Pythagoras his Chair to conceive of Justification as an internal immanent act of God resolving privately in his own Brest not to prosecute his right against a sinner but it must be some declared promulged act c. But why are we not to conceive of it as an internal immanent act Instead of proofs he gives us Illustrations which may pass in a Sermon but are too weak for a dispute As sin saith he is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5.13 So neither is Righteousness imputed without Law Whereunto I answer 1. Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves where there is not a Law to convince them of it For by the Law is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3.20 7.9 Gal. 3.19 Yet it follows not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed For what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin or his will to punish him for his sin Now the Lord hated all that perish ere ever the Law was given The scope of the Scripture alleadged Rom. 5.13 is not to shew when God begins to impute sin to a person but that sin in being supposeth a Law and consequently That there was a Law before the Law of Moses else men could not have sinned as it is confessed they did As the Law it self had a being in the Minde of God so the issues thereof were determined by him before it was declared 2. There is not the same reason of our being sinners and being righteous seeing that sin is our act but Righteousness is the gift of God A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin either by himself or Representative which necessarily supposeth a Law For sin is the transgression of a Law 1 Iohn 3.4 But a man may be righteous before he doth works of Righteousness and consequently before any Law is given him to obey Indeed if we were made righteous by our own personal Inherent Righteousness then our Justification would necessarily require a Law for as much as all our Righteousness consists in a conformity to the Law But seeing we are justified by the imputation of anothers Righteousness what need is there that a Law should first be given unto us § 3. Mr. W. goes on As our condemnation is no secret act or resolution of God to condemn but the very voice and sentence of the Law Cursed is he that sinneth and therefore he whom God in his Eternal Decree hath purposed to save may yet for the present be under the sentence of condemnation as the Ephesians whom God had chosen to Eternal Life Chap. 1.4 were yet sometimes the children of wrath Chap. 2.3 So on the contrary our Justification must be some declared promulged act or sentence of God which may stand good in Law for the discharge of the sinner against condemnation We say that condemnation being taken not for the Will of God to punish or to inflict upon a person the desert of his sin but for the thing willed or for the curse it self it comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam So our Justification being taken not for the Internal Act of Gods will not to punish but for the benefit willed to us by that Internal Act to wit Our actual discharge from the Law descends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made
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
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
the Magistrate to put them to silence but by sound doctrine i. e. by clear and demonstrative Proofs from the Holy Scripture Titus 1.9 11. 6. And lastly If every Christian ought to give a Reason of the hope that is in him as it is enjoyned 1 Pet. 3.15 and as it was wont to be publickly practised in the Primitive Churches much more ought a Minister of Christ who should be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.2 to be willing to satisfie his hearers concerning the Doctrine which he hath delivered objection 1 § 4. Object 1. All that I have heard objected against this practise is of little moment As first some have alledged That the Disciples came privately to our Saviour to ask him Questions Mark 10.10 Mark 9.28 To which I Answer Answ. 1. Though it were in a house yet it was before all his Disciples some did put to him these Questions before the rest and I suppose That they who dissent from us in this matter do look upon all that come unto our Churches to be Disciples 2. The Negative is weakly concluded from the Affirmative It doth not follow That because they came unto him privately therefore they might have asked him these Questions in a Publick place seeing our Saviour never forbad them to do this thing before the people Surely he that so readily made answer to all the Cavils of his enemies would not have refused to satisfie the Doubts Cases or Questions of his own Disciples wheresoever they had put them to him 3. Though Questions which are meerly for private satisfaction should be privately proposed yet such as tend to the edifying of others and to the clearing of such things as are openly delivered are most conveniently moved in the Publick Assemblies But 4. what is this instance to a Ministers witnessing against false and Erroneous Doctrines which are vented amongst the people committed to his charge Object 2. Others have alledged That the Apostle reprehends objection 2 perverse disputings 1 Tim. 6.5 Answ. True and justly too But will it follow from hence That all Publick Disputations and Reasonings about matters of Faith are perverse Disputings Was the Apostle to be charged with perverseness when he reasoned both with Jews and Gentiles as his manner was Those perverse Disputings vers 4. are called strifes of words but such is not the matter which we do differ about which on all hands is confessed to be of very great moment Object 3. Some have objected that prohibition of the Apostle objection 3 Rom. 14.1 Receive him that is weak in the faith but not to doubtful Disputations Answ. 1. The scope of the Apostle was not to prohibite Disputations concerning matters of Faith before such as are weak but to exhort stronger Christians to be tender and charitable to their weaker Brethren whom he would have them to receive scil Into Church Communion and to own in the Fellowship of the Gospel although they were not so fully informed as themselves in the Doctrine of Christian Liberty concerning the distinction of Meats days and other Mosaical Observations Our Translators in the Margent render the last Clause Receive him not to judge his doubtful thoughts q. d. Do not judge him an unbeliever because of his Doubts and Scruples about these indifferent matters or do not perplex and intangle him with Niceties least his Faith in the main be utterly subverted There is a vast difference between those adiaphora which the Apostle speaks of and the points which are in difference between us Mr. Cranford says well That these Controversies concerning our Justification are no strife about Goats Wooll 2. This prohibition makes as much against Preaching of those points which do stumble the weak as against the discussing of them by way of a Conference whatsoever is necessary to be taught the people is as necessary to be tryed and examined by them objection 4 § 5. Object 4. It hath been also alledged which doth cast the greatest odium upon this practise That these Publick Disputations do thwart with those Precepts which require us to seek and follow after Peace as Rom. 12.18 14.19 15. 2. Eph. 4.3 Ans. For my own part I see not the least contrariety between them It was the Judgment of a great Divine Haec unica eaque sola via est qua ad concordiam proximè perveniri potest c. This is the one and onely way whereby we may most suddenly attain to concord if whatsoever things may be or are commonly said for any Opinion or against it be truly propounded in the Churches so that the people be allowed free judgement in all things c. In my Opinion they take a wrong course to make Peace that go about to stop mens mouths and never satisfie their Judgements for from hence innumerable Discords must needs arise Me thinks Christians who are sensible of their many mistakes should not be so strait laced as to resolve to be at Peace with none but such as will jurare in verba Say as we do A late Writer sayes well Why may not Christians and Schollars write plainly against one anothers Judgement with a loving consent So say I Why may we not Reason against each others Opinions in a friendly manner But 2 if Discord and Dissention should arise by this means yet is it not a Natural but an Accidental Effect thereof And thus the Gospel it self doth sometimes cause disturbance as our Saviour foretold Matth. 10.34 35. But is the Gospel to be charged with these Dissentions Or ought we therefore to forbear to Preach the Gospel The proper cause of these Dissentions are mens own corruptions it argues monstrous pride when men cannot suffer their Opinions to be discussed land examined by the Word but strait wayes their Passions are up in arms and hold them for their Enemies that do differ from them It is a sign they are more tender of their own credit then of the truths of Christ. 3. Though Peace be a Jewel of great price yet that Peace is far too dear which costs us the loss of Truth I mean of any Saving Necessary and Fundamental Truth For though in some lesser points In quibus salvâ fide qua Christiani sumus ignoratur verum as Augustine speaks we may for peace sake have our faith or perswasions to our selves Rom. 14.22 Yet sure in those great and weighty matters of the Gospel which are either Foundations or else are adjacent to the Foundation as these Controversies about Justification are it being articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesiae as Luther calls it we ought not out of love to Peace to betray the Truth It is better that Offences should come then that any vital truth should be lost or imbezelled it is far more eligible to have truth without peace then peace without saving truth The wisdom which is from above is first pure and then peaceable All those Precepts which do call for
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
if they had clave the Cart before the Ark was taken down which could not be In 2 Tim. 1.9 it is said God hath saved us and called us yet I suppose Mr. W. will not say That men are saved before they are called So though Vocation be set before Justification yet it doth not follow that it precedes it in order of Nature 2 The Apostles scope here is not to shew in what order these Benefits are bestowed upon us but how inseparably they are linked unto our Predestination and that it is Impossible either sin or affliction should make them miserable whom God hath chosen 3 I see no inconvenience at all in saying That the Apostle here speaks of Justification as it is declared and terminated in our Consciences which some learned men do make the formale of Justification and in this respect I shall grant him That Justification is a consequent of Vocation § 6. Mr. Woodbridges next Allegation is from Rom. 4.24 Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we believe Ergo It was not imputed before we did believe I answer That the consequence is not necessary for this Particle if is used sometimes declaratively It doth not always propound the condition by which a benefit is obtained but sometimes it serves to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong Descriptions are taken from Effects and Consequences as well as from the Causes or Antecedent Conditions As for instance If a man saith the Apostle purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honor 2 Tim. 2.21 The Papists infer from hence That a man is made a vessel of honor by purging himself c. Our Protestant Divines do answer That the place proves not that a man is hereby made or becomes a vessel of honor but that hereby he is manifested and known to be a vessel of honor So Heb. 3.6 Whose house are we if we hold fast our confidence and the rejoycing of the hope firm unto the end Which we are not to understand as if these things did make us to be the house of God but that hereby we appear and approve our selves to be the house of God This Conjunction if is many times annexed unto the Marks and Cognizances of such as shall be saved or are happy which do shew Non propter quid beand◠sunt vel servandi sed quales beati sunt quales servandi Not upon what conditions but what manner of persons are finally saved I see no reason but it may be so understood in this place his Righteousness is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us that we whether Jews or Gentiles are the persons to whom this grace belongs if God hath drawn our hearts to believe and obey the Gospel in regard that none do or can believe but such as are ordained to life and to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ. The Lord works Faith in none but in them to whom he hath imputed the Righteousness of his Son § 7. The other Scriptures he hath brought conclude as weakly against us as any of the former as Acts 10.43 Thorow his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins And Acts 26.18 That they may receive forgiveness of sins who are sanctified by Faith with Acts 13.39 By him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses To which says Mr. W. might be added multitudes of other places I confess his Concordance would have furnished him with many such places but no more to the purpose then these he hath cited which though they affirm That Believers are justified yet they deny not the Justification of the Elect before believing In the former it is Whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sins it is not By believing we obtain remission of sins or God doth not discount mens sins unto them till they do believe The giving of remission and the receiving of remission are two things the former is Gods act who is the onely Justifier the latter is ours the former is properly Justification and not the latter though it be called so in a passive and improper sence We know a Prince pardons a malefactor when he gives his consent That the Sentence of the Law should be reversed and confirms it with his Hand and Seal This Pardon is valid in Law and secures the offender from punishment though it come not to his hands for a good while after So a Father gives and bequeaths an Estate to his Childe that is an Infant which by the donation of the Father belongs to the Childe though the Childe do not receive and enjoy it till he comes to age So God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their sins unto them Though no man doth receive and enjoy this Grace till he doth believe we obtain remission of sins by Christ alone but we receive it by Faith § 8. In the 13 of the Acts 39 the Apostle shews the excellency of the Gospel above the Law or the priviledge of the Saints in the New Testament above them that lived under the Old Administration Who saith he are justified from all things c. There was a cleansing and purgation of sin provided in the Law but not like unto that which is revealed in the Gospel For 1 the Law did not cleanse them from all sins for some sins it allowed of no Sacrifice at all as for Blasphemy sins of presumption c. But now the Blood of that Sacrifice which is exhibited in the Gospel cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 Mark 3.28 2 Those Sacrifices made them clean but in an External Typical manner as To the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9.13 they could not make them perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 10.12 Whereas the cleansing which is made by the Blood of Christ is Spiritual and Internal It purgeth mens consciences from dead works Heb. 9.14 They that are purged herewith have no more conscience of sin de jure if not de facto Chap. 10.2 They have the answer of a good conscience toward God q. d. They can plead not guilty 1 Pet. 3.21 3 The legal cleansing was by Sacrifice after Sacrifice Heb. 10.3 Whereas Christ by one Sacrifice once offered hath taken away all the sins of his people or as it is in Daniel hath made an end of sin So that here is nothing at all of the time of our Justification though he affirms That they that believe are thus perfectly justified yet it follows not from this or any other Text That the Elect are not justified before they believe and much less That a man is justified by the gratious act or habit of Faith § 9. Mr. W. Pag. 2. gives his Reader our Sence of these Scriptures The onely Answer saith he which is given to these and the like Texts is this That
us totally passive in this work Rom. 3.24 26. 8.33 Eph. 2.8 We can no more justifie our selves then raise our selves from the dead Eph. 2.1 5. or then we could give our selves a being when as yet we were not Vers 10. Man is so far from being the total or principal Cause of his Justification that he is no cause at all by ascribing the least causality or efficiency to man in his Justification we derogate from the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. § 4. Others do take Faith in a proper sence as the Papists Socinians and Remonstrants amongst whom though there be some difference in Expression yet they all agree in this That by Faith in this Proposition A man is justified by Faith is meant the act or habit of Faith or such a Faith as is accompanied with faithful Actions The Papists say That Faith and other inherent Graces though in their own nature they do not deserve Justification yet through the merits of Christ and Gods gracious acceptance they do procure and obtain the forgiveness of our sins Though they ascribe a meritoriousness to Faith it is but in a qualified sence Faith saith Bellarmine doth but Suo quidem modo mereri remissionem after a manner merit remission scil By vertue of Gods Promise and Covenant who hath annexed forgiveness unto this condition If a King saith he doth promise a Beggar a thousand pound a year upon no condition then indeed the Beggar doth not deserve it but if it be upon condition that he do some small matter as to come and fetch it or to bring him a Posie of flowers then he doth deserve it because the promiser is bound unto performance And in this sence Mr. B. ascribes a meritoriousness to works But the chief difference between them and us lies in this We say a man is justified by the imputation of Christs Righteousness they That we are justified by inherent Righteousness or by doing of Righteous Actions such as are Faith Love Fear c. Ipsa fides in Christum saith Bellarmine est justitia Faith it self is our righteousness And that it doth justifie us impetrando promerendo inchoando â—ustificationem Arminius and the Remonstrants though they have exploded the word merit yet they attribute as much to Faith and faithful Actions as the Papists themselves Dico saith Arminius ipsum fidei actum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputari in justitiam idquè sensu proprio non metonymicè The very same is affirmed by Vorstius Bertius Episcopius and the rest of the Remonstrants Their Opinion in brief is this That God in the Legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to perform Which say they is procured by the merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect faith to be perfect Righteousness § 5. Some of our late Divines who seem to disclaim the Doctrine of the Papists and Arminians say the very same who explain themselves to this effect That Faith doth justifie as a condition or antecedent qualification by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God The fulfilling of which condition say they is our Evangelical Righteousness whereby we are justified in the sight of God Mr. B. is so fond of this notion That although in one place he findes fault with the length of our Creeds and Confessions yet he would have this made an article of our Creed a part of our Childrens Catechisms and to be believed by every man that is a Christian so apt are we to smile upon our own Babes Though I honor Mr. Baxter for his excellent parts yet I must suspend my assent to his new Creed I shall prove anon That Faith is not said to justifie as an antecedent condition which qualifies us for Justification but at present I shall onely render him the Reasons of my disbelief Why I cannot look upon Faith as that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified I shall not insist upon it though it be not altogether unconsiderable that this notion is guilty of too much confederacy with the aforenamed enemies of the Christian Faith for though it is no good Argument to say That Papists Socinians c. do hold this or that therefore it is not true yet it will follow That such and such Tenents have been held by Papists c. and unanimously opposed by our Protestant Writers therefore they ought to be the more suspected and especially such Tenents of theirs as are the cheif points in difference between us and them as this is Our Brethren that have started this notion do take Faith as the others do in a proper sence they attribute as much to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere as Bellarmine Arminius or any other Faith it self says Mr. B. is our Righteousness There was never any Papist so absurd as to say That our Faith Love c. are perfect Legal Righteousness but that God judicio misericordiae non justitiae doth account and accept of it instead of perfect Righteousness For my part I must confess that I can see no dâ—fference between them but in Expression The Papists do acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ and that he is the meritorious cause of our Justification They say indeed That we are not justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed but by a Righteousness inherent in us or righteous actions performed by us And what do our Brethren say less less then this But I shall not follow the Parallel any further § 6. The Reasons which turn the Scales of my Judgement against this notion That our Faith or Faithful Actions are that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified Are 1. If we are not justified by our own works then our believing c. is not that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified but we are not justified by our own works Ergo. The Assumption is written with a Sun beam throughout the Scripture Tit. 3.5 Not by works of Righteousness which we have done Rom. 11.6 If it be of Works then were Grace no more Grace It is the cheif scope of the Apostle throughout this and the Epistle to the Galatians to prove That we are not justified by works The sequel of the Proposition is as evident Because Faith and Obedience to Gospel Precepts are our works It is man that believes and obeys and not God though we do them by his help and assistance yet they are our acts or works so that consequently we are not justified by them in the sight of God The Papists to elude the force of this Argument say That the minde of the Apostle was onely to exclude from Justification works of Nature and not of Grace works which we our selves do by our own strength without the help
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
a Stone or other Creatures which are not capable of sinning but Privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of Righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentiâ The difference between these is as great as between a mans will not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted and his will not to require any thing of one that never did nor will ow him any thing 2 This non-imputation of sin is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being in like manner the imputation of Righteousness is actual though the Righteousness to be imputed is not actual Man whose thoughts arise de novo doth non-impute usually after the commission of a fault but for God who is without any shadow of change and turning so to do is absolutely impossible for as much as there cannot arise any new will or new thought in the heart of God 3 This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable Will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it and he in like manner imputing Righteousness none can hinder it Neither doth this render the death of Christ useless which is necessary by the Ordinance of God as a meritorious cause of all the effects of this Justification even as the eternal Love of God is compleat in it self but yet is Christ the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Eph. 1.3 4. And therefore we say § 7. 2. That if Justification be taken as most commonly it proposition 2 is not for the Will of God but for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Though there be no cause of the former out of God himself for the merits of Christ do not move God to will not to punish or impute sin unto us yet is Christ the meritorious cause of the latter It is from the vertue of his Sacrifice that the obligation of the Law is made void and the punishments therein threatned do not fall upon us By his death he obtained in behalf of all the Elect not a remote possible or conditional reconciliation but an actual absolute and immediate reconciliation as shall be proved anon And in this respect all that were given unto Christ by the Father may be said to be justified at his death not onely virtually but formally for the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor Their discharge from the Law was not to be sub termino or in Diem but present and immediate it being impossible that a debt should be discharged and due at the same time We acknowledge That the effects of this discharge from the Law may be said to be sub termino or in Diem As for instance from that full satisfaction and perfect Righteousness which Christ hath performed there arise these two things One is The non-execution of the desert of sin which we continually commit upon us That whereas the Reprobate sin and upon their sin the curse with all the evils included in it is upon them The Elect likewise sinning yet for Christs sake the curse or evil of suffering is not inflicted upon them which non-punishing quoad effectum is forgiving and not imputing sin And in this sense God is frequently said to forgive when he doth not inflict punishment and in this sense also he is said often to forgive The other is The imputation of Righteousness in the effects of it whereby the effects of a true and perfect Righteousness come upon the people of God to wit All good things both for this life and that which is to come yea those things which seem to be evil and hurtful as their falls and afflictions are ordered by the over-ruling hand of a wise and powerful Providence to work together for good unto them These effects are immediate in respect of causality though not of time for though God doth not presently bestow them but as he sees fit both for his own glory and for their good yet do they immediately slow from the merit of Christ in regard there is no other meritorious cause that intervenes and concurs therewith in procuring of them Notwithstanding we say That our discharge from the Law must needs be immediate and present with the price or satisfaction that was paid for it in regard That it implies a contradiction a debt should be paid and discharged and yet justly chargable But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter § 8. 3. Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution proposition 3 and forgiveness And thus God is said to justifie men when he reveals and makes known to them his Grace and Kindness within himself And in this sense do most of our Divines take Justification defining it The declared sence of absolution and not improperly For in Scripture phrase as was noted before things are then said to be when they are declared and manifested the declaring of things is expressed in such wise as if it made them to be whereof many instances might be given a very plain one there is Gen. 41.13 Pharaohs cheif Butler speaking of Josephs interpretation Me says he he restored and him i. e. the Baker he hanged whereas he did but declare these successes unto them So God is said to justifie his people when he manifests and reveals to them that mercy and forgiveness which before was hidden in his own heart to wit that he doth not impute their sins but contrariwise doth impute Righteousness unto them Now the Lord at sundry times and divers ways hath and doth declare and manifest this precious Grace unto his people 1 More Generally towards all his Elect and 2 more Particularly to individuals or numerical persons The former is done 1 in the Word of God and 2 in his Works and Actions § 9. First God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to his people in his Word The Gospel or New Covevant being an absolute promise as we shall shew anon may be fitly termed a Declarative Sentence of Absolution unto all the Elect to whom alone it doth belong the publication of the New Covenant is their Justification For which cause Maccovius makes Justification to Commence from the first promise which was pronounced before the curse So that if Adam had not been a publick person including both the Elect and Reprobate there had been no curse at all pronounced save onely upon the Serpent or Satan in reference to this promise it was that the Apostle saith The Grace of God 2 Tim. 1.9 and eternal life Tit. 1.2 was given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie eternity as our Translators carry it but the beginning of time it is of the same latitude with 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thes. 2.13 some learned men have observed that the phrase is most properly rendered ante tempora secularia i. e. ante multa secula vel sub initio seculorum to wit in that famous promise of the womans seed Gen. 3.15 Now what was that Grace and Life which was given us in the beginning of times but the Grace of Free Justification whereby we are made to stand just and righteous in the sight of God This Grace was revealed more clearly and distinctly in after ages it shined brighter and brighter till the day spring from on high did visit us Whose coming made it perfect day in comparison whereof former times were obscure darkness Joh. 3.19 Eph. 3.5 2 Cor. 3.18 c. And therefore Grace and Life is peculiarly ascribed to the times of the New Testament or the clear exhibition of the New Covenant at the coming of Jesus Christ 2 Tim. 1.10 And the Gospel is said to cleanse and sanctifie men i. e. to justifie them or to purge them from an evil Conscience John 15.3 17.17 § 10. Secondly God hath declared his gracious sentence of non-imputing sin and imputing Righteousness unto his people in his Works and Actions both towards Christ and towards themselves In his actions or dealing with Jesus Christ two ways 1 In charging or transacting all their sins and iniquities upon him Isai. 53.6 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 2.24 The Lord thereby declared his will and purpose not to charge sin upon them for whom Christ interposed himself a surety His imputing of our sins to Christ was formally the non-imputing of them to us Gods accounting of them unto him was a discounting of them unto us for they could not be accounted or charged upon both without a manifest contradiction in the thing it self and in the justice of God as it is that a debt should be wholly accounted to and discharged by the surety and yet the same debt afterward be justly accounted to and charged upon him that first contracted it I confess a debt may be charged both upon the Principal and Surety before it be discharged though afterwards to neither But the case was not so between Christ and us God did not take his Elect and Christ joyntly to make satisfaction or him upon our failing or us upon his but transacted the whole debt upon him alone Now I say the Lord laying our iniquities in such a manner upon Christ singly absolutely and irrevocably he plainly declared thereby that it was his will never to lay them to our charge 2 In that publick discharge or acquittance which he gave unto Christ at his Resurrection the Lord by raising him from the dead and as it were setting him free out of prison openly declared That he had received full satisfaction for all those sins which Christ as a surety had taken upon him viz. For all the sins of all the Elect. And for this reason as an eminent Divine observes the Lord sent an Angel to remove the stone from the mouth of the Sepulcher not to supply any want of power in Christ who could himself have rouled it away with one of his fingers but as a Judge when the Law is satisfied sendeth an Officer to set open the prison unto him who hath made that satisfaction So the Father to testifie that his Justice was fully satisfied with the price which his Son had paid sent an Officer of Heaven to open the prison doors and to set him free Christs Resurrection was a solemn judicial act whereby God the Supream Judge justified both him and us 1 Him from all those sins which he had undertaken whereunto our Divines do apply these following Scriptures Isai. 50.8 9. 1 Tim. 3.16 Acts 13.35 Heb. 9.21 2 Us from our own sins The Resurrection of Christ was as Mr. Parker says well an actual Justification of all them for whom he became a Surety for 1 he was not justified from any sins of his own being in himself just and innocent but from those sins which were charged upon him in his death which saith the Prophet were the iniquities of us all Isa. 53.6 If a debt be discharged it cannot without manifest injustice be charged again the discharge of the Surety is the discharge of the Principal God by acquitting Christ from the guilt of our sins did also fully acquit us from the same 2 Christ in his Death and Resurrection was a common person as in his death he was condemned for our sins so in his Resurrection he was justified from our sins All the Elect were justified in his Justification there is the same reason for their Justification in Christ as there is for the Condemnation of mankinde in Adam Therefore sayes the Apostle Rom. 5.18 us by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so or in like manner by the Righteousness of one Man Christ the Free-gift came upon all men viz. All in Christ unto Justification of Life § 11. Besides the General Declaration of Forgiveness unto all the Elect this Gracious Sentence is also declared to particular persons 1. Externally in foro Ecclesiae by the Sacrament of Baptism the Minister of Christ standing in his stead by Dipping or Pouring water upon a person doth in his Name or by his Authority declare and publish the washing away of his sins by the Blood of Christ The principal thing which Baptism holds forth is our Justification it was ordained for the remission of sins Luke 3.3 and Acts 2.38 not to obtain or procure this benefit ex opere operato but to declare and obsignate unto men their interest therein In Rom. 6.3 4 5. we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism and to be implanted thereby into the similitude of his Death and Resurrection The meaning is That our Communion in the benefits of both is hereby ratified and confirmed to us Upon this ground I conceive it was That in the old Liturgy persons baptised are said to be regenerated or born again i. e. Translated into a new state viz. From the old Adam into the new Adam From the power of darkness to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ Col. 1.13 Which Baptism doth not effect but declare and seal it having no other cause but the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ Tit. 3.5 1 Pet. 3.21 1 John 1.7 The late Assembly in their Directory say as much viz. That Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace of our ingrafting into Christ of our union with him of our remission of sins c. It is strange to me That they who say Baptism is a Seal of our Justification and hold that Infants who have not Faith ought to be baptised should deny that Justification precedes Faith Now though this Declarative Sentence be but ministerial and meerly of order like the power of loosing John 20.23 applied to Hypocrites to the greatest part of them that are baptised whether they be Infants
man any thing which is neither in the word nor necessarily deduced from it the testimony is false and sinful For understanding whereof we must know that there is a threefold act of conscience about sin the first When it witnesseth to us concerning the desert of sin the second When it witnesseth to us concerning the act of sin or the sins which we have done the third is When it witnesseth to us concerning our final state and condition before God Now if Conscience doth bear witness to a man concerning what he hath done and what is his desert in so doing it doth but its duty Rom. 1.34 But if it tell a man that for the sins which he hath done he is a damned Creature and must perish everlastingly such a Conscience is both penally and sinfully evil The Conscience of an unbeliever accuseth truly when it convinceth him of sin that Death eternal is the wages of it and that by the Law he can expect no other But if it proceeds to tell a man that his case is desperate and without hope it pronounceth a false sentence For though he be a Reprobate and consequently the sentence is true in it self yet it is a false testimony in him for as much as conscience witnesseth that which it cannot certainly know how much more is it a false testimony when the Conscience of an Elect person doth make such a conclusion against himself That God hath absolutely condemned him to Hell torments it is false in it self and false in him If it were a true sentence it were then impossible he should be saved For condemnation as Mr. W. confesseth a little after is opposed to Salvation and the Law saith not Now cursed but cursed for ever Matth. 25.41 And therefore I say If the Conscience of any sinner either Elect or Reprobate shall in this life pass such an absolute and peremptory sentence against himself that the curse of the Law shall be inflicted upon him he sins both against the Law and the Gospel 1 Against the Law by applying the Ministery thereof to a wrong end and not as God hath intended it for the Law was not given ex primaria intentione to condemn men but to further and advance the Ministery of the Gospel that men seeing what they are by nature and what they have deserved might flee for refuge unto Jesus Christ. Now when men hearing the Curse of the Law conclude that surely this must be their portion and that it is never the neerer for them that the Son of God hath shed his Blood for sinners they sin against the Law in regard the end of the Law is to cause them to flee unto Christ so that by making the sentence of the Law absolute they quite cross the design and intention of God in giving the Law 2 They deny the very tenor and substance of the Gospel which is That in Christ there is life eternal for sinners and for ought that they can know to the contrary for them as well as for others § 9. Though we say That the sentence of condemnation which men pass upon themselves in this life is false and erroneous yet are we innocent of those ugly consequences which Mr. W. would thrust upon us Of blinding mens eyes and hardening their hearts and searing up their consciences c. Which are more likely to follow upon an indiscreet application of the Law and mens making the voice thereof the definitive sentence of God upon all Transgressors which is the ready way to make men quite desperate and to harden their hearts in unbelief We hold it necessary That the Law should be preached to unbelievers in it◠strictness rigor and inexorable severity that they may see there is no hope for them at all by the works of the Law yet we would have it preached as an Appendant to the Gospel not to drive men to despair but to believe and to flee to that Sanctuary which is opened in the Gospel whereas if it be published alone and as an absolute sentence it is a bar to Faith For if God doth condemn men who shall justifie them Christs merits will not save them whom God doth condemn witness Reprobate Men and Angels Unto whom there remaineth no sacrifice at all for sin § 10. His third Exception is That the condemnation with exception 3 which the unbeliever is condemned is expressed John 3.36 by the abiding of Gods wrath upon him Therefore we say no Elect unbeliever is condemned of God because the wrath of God doth not abide upon him The condemnation wherewith the unbeliever i. e. The final unbeliever is condemned is indeed the abiding of Gods wrath that is he shall die everlastingly for it is opposed to everlasting life but what is this to the Elect who are not final unbelievers § 11. His fourth and last is That the condemnation of unbelievers exception 4 is opposed to Salvation John 3.17 And surely the condemnation that is opposed to Salvation is more then the condemnation of a mans own conscience c. I answer 1. That the condemnation opposed to Salvation is damnation and then by Mr. Woodbridges Argument the Elect because they are sometimes unbelievers must all be damned But 2. this rather shews as I said before that by him that believeth not is meant he that believeth not at all CHAP. XII Wherein Mr. Woodbridges third fourth and fifth Arguments are answered HIs third Argument is drawn from the several comparisons by which Justification by Faith is illustrated Sometimes it is compared to the Israelites looking up to the Brazen Serpent for healing Joh. 3.14 Numb 21 8. As then they were not first healed and then looked up to see what healed them but they did first look upon the Serpent and then they were healed Even so it is the Will of God that whosoever seeth and believeth the Son shall be justified John 6.40 Sometimes Faith is compared to eating and Justification to the nourishment which we receive by our meat c. To which I answer 1. That comparisons prove nothing unless they are framed by the Holy Ghost for the thing in question Now I utterly deny that it was the intent of the Holy Ghost in either of these comparisons to shew in what order or method we are justified in the sight of God 2. The stinging of the fiery Serpents did plainly shadow forth the effects of the Law in Conscience The Law by revealing the wrath of God against all unrighteousness stings and wounds mens consciences for which cause it is called a fiery Law Deut. 33.2 To wit from its effects because it doth as it were kindle a fire in mens bones they have no rest in their souls until these wounds are healed Now as the Israelites when they were stung by those fiery Serpents found no ease till they looked up unto the Brazen Serpent So the soul that is smitten and wounded by the Ministery of the Law will never finde rest
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
are justified by performing the conditions required of us which in effect makes men their own Saviours as before 5 He recedes very far both from the meaning and expressions of all our Orthodox Writers who do constantly call our Saviour a common person but never that I finde the exemplary cause of our Justification I shall onely refer the Reader to what his Grand-father Parker hath written of this matter who hath copiously and learnedly proved both from Scripture and the Fathers That Christ no less then the first Adam was made a common person by the Ordination of God and his own voluntary undertaking who took our sins upon him as if they had been his own and for the same made full satisfaction to Divine Justice and consequently received as full a discharge in our behalf 6 This expression of his savors rankly both of Pelagianism and Socinianism The Pelagians as they made the first Adam a meer pattern and example in communicating sin to his posterity so they made the second Adam but the pattern and example of our reconciliation Those words 2 Cor. 5.18 Who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ they expounded by his Doctrine and by his Example i. e. By our obedience to his Doctrine and by imitatâ—ng his example The Socinians do speak the same Language Christus ideo servator noster dicitur quod salutis viam nobis annunciavit quod salutis viam nobis confirmavit miraculorum patratione sanguinis effusione resurrectione à mortuis quod vitae exemplo viam salutis nobis ostendit Christ is therefore called a Saviour because by his Life and Doctrine he hath shewed us the way of Salvation and by his Miracles and Sufferings hath confirmed the same I am sorry to hear the Language of Ashdod from the mouth of a Protestant Minister § 4. The excuse which he gives for calling our Saviour the exemplary cause of our Justification rather then a common person is both fallacious and impertinent I use saith he the term of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents as the Parliament of the Commonwealth 1. It is fallacious dealing under pretence of giving a more significant term to leave out that wherein the force of the Argument lay He seems to intimate that the phrases are of equal latitude that an exemplary cause doth express as much as a common person which is cleerly false for the act of the Exemplar is not the act of the Imitator as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents which in Law is accounted as if it had been done by them Parents and Superiors are examples to their Children and Inferiors they are not common persons as Adam was to all his posterity In whose loyns saith the Apostle we all sinned and in this respect he is made a figure of Christ Rom. 5.14 Whose Righteousness is accounted unto them for whom he died as Adams sin was accounted unto us when as yet we were not 2. It is impertinent for though Christ be not the effect of them whom he represents yet that hinders not but that his discharge was theirs no less then if he had been chosen by them I can see no reason why the act of God constituting and appointing his Son to be the Head Surety and Common Person to all his Elect should not be as effectual for the communication of his benefits to them as their own choice and election We did not chuse Adam to be our common person and yet his sin was imputed to us so though we did not chuse the Lord Jesus to stand in our stead that is no reason why his Righteousness and Satisfaction should not be accounted ours § 5. The instances he hath brought from our Personal Resurrection and Inherent Sanctification to render this Argument absurd have not the least force to conclude against the efficacy of Christs Satisfaction for our immediate discharge from sin and wrath It doth not follow that because we did not personally rise with Christ and were not inherently sanctified in his Sanctification Ergo. We had not in his Resurrection an actual discharge from the guilt of sin there is not the like reason for these For to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt or satisfaction to the Law of God but our personal resurrection necessarily supposeth both our life and death Again our Inherent Sanctification cannot be without our personal existence and the use of those means which God hath appointed for that end but our Justification is wrought without us and for us Though Christ hath fully merited our Sanctification and Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be crucified with him and to be risen with Christ as well as our Justification yet it is not necessary that these benefits should be communicated to us at the same time and in the same manner It is no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Resurrection though we are not risen as to say Christ hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for as hath been shewn to say a debt is discharged and yet that it is justly chargable implies a contradiction Let the Reader judge whether the Assertion that follows be not much more confident then solid No man living can shew any reason of difference as if he were master of as much Reason as all men living why we may not as justly infer that our Resurrection is passed already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justication is passed before we believe because we are justified in Christ. Enough hath been said to evict the disproportion of these consequences § 6. 2. His next distinction is That Justification is either Causal and Virtual or Actual and Formal We were saith he causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Our Protestant Divines do generally place the formale of Justification in the non-imputation of sin Now if our sins were formally imputed unto Christ even to a full Satisfaction they could not formally be imputed unto us also unless a debt discharged by a Surety can be justly reckoned unto him that did first contract it It is true a debt may be imputed both to Principal and Surety before it be discharged but after to neither It is granted by all Orthodox Writers That our Saviour by giving himself to death made full satisfaction to the utmost farthing for all the sins or debts of Gods Elect. Now I say the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor unless we speak of an outward formality such as is by an Acquittance which serves but either against the unfaithfulness of the creditor who otherwise would deny the payment or else against the ignorance of the debtor who being not at the payment might still look upon himself as a debtor and lyable
men have affirmed that the person of the Spirit dwels in the Saints from those Texts John 14.16 17 26.15.26 2 Tim. 1.14 Rom. 8.11 1 Cor. 6.19.3.16 Yet none that are sober ever affirmed that the person of the Spirit dwelleth in us in such a manner as to make us one person with himselfe or to communicate his personal Properties to us so that I may say of this Argument as Maldonate of a certain Text in the Gospel hic locus facilior esset si nemo cum exposuisset it had been more plain and perspicuous if these distinctions had been omitted I see not how a man could imagine any other sence then this That God according to his gracious Covenant doth in his appointed time give or send his Spirit in the preaching of the Gospell to work Faith in all those that are ordained to life So that the Spirit is the cause and Faith the effect It matters not how he is given whether Personally or Operatively for if the Spirit which works Faith be given us by vertue of the New Covenant then some benefit of the Covenant is bestowed upon us before we beleeve Quod erat demonstrandum § 5. Though the Spirit be not given us as he saith one atome of time before we beleeve yet that weakens not the force of the Argument it is enough for my purpose that it hath a precedency in order of nature though not of time and that Faith is not before the Spirit for then Faith is not the condition of the Covenant seeing the condition goes before the thing conditioned and consequently that conditional Promise If thou beleeve c. is not the tenor of the New Covenant Either he must say 1 That the Spirit doth not work Faith and that it is a work of Nature to wit of our own Free will contrary to innumerable Scriptures Or 2 That the Spirit which works Faith is not given us by vertue of the New Covenant which was disproved by comparing Joh. 6.45 with Jer. 31.34 is contrary to those Scriptures which affirmed that all spiritual blessings are given us in and through Christ Eph. 1.3 Rom. 8.32 Or 3 that there is some other condition of the Covenant besides and before Faith as they that make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ingenuity and towardlinesse of nature the condition of conversion or 4 that there are two New Covenants one absolute and the other conditional one wherein Faith is promised without condition the other wherein all things else are promised upon condition of Faith of which more in its place § 6. Whereas he chargeth me with often abusing that received maxime Posita causa ponitur effectus Leting passe his uncivil language I say 1 that in our discourse I did not so much as mention it nor at any time else but with such cautions and limitations as Artists give understanding it of causa proxima completa and then I conceive causa posita in actu the effect must necessarily follow 2 I cannot see that it is any abuse to apply it to the death of Christ in effecting our Justification or deliverance from the curse his death and satisfaction being the adequate and immediate cause therof for when the debt is paid the oblâ—gation is no longer in force 3 Though I understood this maxime never so well it would little advantage Mr. Woodbridges cause That Faith is the condition of having the Spirit in our first conversion unlesse it would prove that the cause is produced by its immedate effect § 7. That which follows is altogether impertinent as a man saith he doth first build himselfe an house and then dwels in it so Christ by his Spirit doth build organâ—ze and prepare the Soule to be an house unto himselfe and then by the same Spirit dwels in it immediately What is this to prove that no man hath interest in the Covenant before he beleeves or that the Spirit which workes Faith is not given us before Faith We grant that Christ by his Spirit doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 build or prepare the Soule to be his house and then dwels in it vouchsafes more sensible effects of his presence but is not that organizing preparing act of the Spirit one benefit of the Covenant and is not the Spirit in that act the cause of Faith if so then wee have an interest in the Covenant before Faith for he that hath jus in re doubtlesse hath jus ad rem when wee have the benefits of the Covenant it cannot bee denied but wee have a right and title to them I find that Mr. Burges mentions this answer but saith he it is not safe to go this way for that grand promise Ezek. 36.26 Doth evidently argue the habits or internall principles of grace are before the actions of grace § 8. His next passage gives us little evidence of a heart prepared and organized by the Spirit of Christ it being false and slanderous This saith he is that which I would have spoken publickly in answer to the Argument if Mr. E. had not been beyond measure obstreperous 1 I dare say such as know Mr. Woodbridges tongue and forehead will not easily beleeve that he would be hindred from speaking his whole mind But 2 my innocency in this matter hath been cleared by persons more worthy to be beleeved then Mr. W. especially when be speaks in his owne cause 3 I shall adde that I verily beleeve he then spake near as many words I am sure as much to the purpose as this which he hath Printed I well remember some passages which are here omirted as that saying anima fabricat sibi domicilium the Soul formes the Body and then dwels in it as the soul works first efficiently that afterwards it may act formally so doth the spirit in our conversion c. 4 If he spake no more it was his owne fault for all that were present doe know that the onely answer I could get unto divers Syllogismes was I deny all But this he intended rather to vilifie me then to excuse himselfe CHAP. XVII Concerning the Covenant wherein Faith is promised and by vertue whereof it is given to us MR. W. in the next place propoundes this Question Whether Faith it selfe be not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us Which he answers negatively Faith is not given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us but by vertue of the Covenant made with Christ His Answer implies that there are two distinct Covenants of Grace one made with Christ and the other with us which will need a clearer evidence then yet he hath given us We deny not but Faith yea and all other blessings are promised in the Covenant which was made with Christ the promise of giving him a seed and that this seed shall be blessed doth include no lesse All the Promises both of this life and that which is to come are but so many explications of the grand
though he started aside as well as Saul yet the Covenant made with him was not thereupon dissolved and broken § 8. 3. Because if there were any condition required in the New Covenant to intitle us to the Blessings of it it would not be a Covenant of pure Grace so that the asserting of conditions in the New Covenant doth by necessary consequence overthrow the nature of it for as Austine hath observed Grace is not grace unless it be every way free and the Apostle before him Rom. 11.6 If by grace then is it no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace but if it be of works then is it no more grace Our Salvation is ascribed to Grace not onely inclusively but exclusively Ephes. 2.8 9 Tit. 2.5 All the Blessings of the New Covenant are called Gifts Rom. 5.17 18. 6.23 and gifts that are given freely 1 Cor. 2.12 Rom. 3.24 To give a thing freely and conditionally are contradictories he that parts with any thing upon conditions doth as it were sell it The works and conditions which men perform in the Prophets phrase are their money Isai. 55.1 2. A condition performed makes the thing covenanted for a due debt which the promiser is bound to give so that if the Blessings of the Covenant did depend upon conditions they would not be of grace but debt and men by performing those conditions would be at least in part their own Saviours Now what can be imagined more derogatory to the Grace of God Object True may some say it would derogate from the grace of God if we attributed such a meritoriousness unto these conditions as the Papists do unto works but we do not do so To which I answer 1 That the Papists assert no other works and conditions to be necessary to Justification and Salvation then what our Adversaries do 2 Neither Papists nor Arminians do ascribe any more meritoriousness to works then our opponents They grant there is such an infinite distance and disproportion between the Blessing promised and the conditions required of us that in strictness of Justice they do not deserve it onely expacto seeing God is pleased to promise so largely upon condition of so small a pittance of service we may be said to merit by performing the condition and in this sence Mr. Baxter will tell you That the performers of a condition may be said to merit the reward The Papists never pleaded for merit upon any other account Mr. Calvin observed long ago how much they please themselves with this simple shift supposing that hereby they shall evade whatsoever Arguments are brought against them Though Mr. B. seems to mince the matter calling his conditions but a sine qua non and a Pepper corn c. he attributes as much if not more to works then the Papists Arminians and Socinians have done the Papists will not say That works do merit in a strict and proper sence Smalzius calls their fides formata a meer sine qua non and a known friend to the Remonstrants Doctrine amongst our selves dubs it with no better name then a sleight unconsiderable despicable Pepper corn most pitifully unproportionable to the great rent which God might require and to the infinite treasure of glory he makes over to us And again That mite of Obedience Faith and Love But now Mr. B. goes a step beyond them in that he ascribes a meritoriousness to works which the Arminians and Socinians have not dared to do 3 I would ask whether the condition required of Adam were meritorious of eternal life I presume no man will say it was in a strict and proper sense there being no proportion between the work and the wages but yet that condition did lessen the freeness of Divine Grace The Grace of God was not manifested so much in saving man in that way as in giving life unto him freely And therefore to put our Justification and Salvation upon the same terms must necessarily eclipse the Grace of God in the New Covenant Object But some may say there is a great difference the conditions required of Adam were legal conditions but the conditions which we stand for and assert in the New Covenant are Evangelical Conditions I answer That the sound of words doth nothing at all alter the nature of things all conditions performed for life are legal conditions The precepts both of Law and Gospel have the same matter though not the same end but when Gospel duties are made conditions of Justification and Salvation there is no difference Object Yes may some say Evangelical conditions are more facile and easie then the Legal were Are they so Let them consider again whether it be more easie for a man that is dead in trespasses and sins to believe in Christ to love God to hate sin to mortifie his lusts c. then it was for Adam in his innocency when he had a natural inclination to obey God to abstain from the fruit of one Tree when he had a thousand besides as good as that there can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was But if it were so yet would the reward be debt and not grace As he that hath his peny by contract hath as much right to it though he labored but an hour as if he had endured the heat of the whole day We say Gradus non variat speciem it is not more grace but all grace that doth denominate the Covenant a Covenant of Grace § 9. To these Reasons there might be added many more which because they have been mentioned before upon another occasion I shall not stand upon them 4. Because all the pretended conditions of the Covenant are promised in the Covenant Now it is absurd to make any thing a cause of itself or a means and condition whereby it is procured 5. Because the asserting of conditions in the Covenant attributes unto men a power and ability to do good not onely before they are justified but before they believe For if all the promises of the Covenant are conditional then the promise of Faith is conditional and consequently a man must be supposed able to perform some good and acceptable work to God before he believes whereas without Faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Conditions in a proper sence do necessarily infer the liberty of mans will unto that which is good for as the Remonstrants do define it A condition is a free act which we absolutely may perform or not perform by Freewil not acted by the predeterminating grace of God A Conditional Covenant and Freewil are inseparable the former supposeth the latter Whether Mr. W. will own the Consequence I am not able to say however that there is no such power or ability in the Natural man to do that which is good might be irrefragably demonstrated from sundry Scriptures as Gen. 6.5 Eph. 2.1 2. 1 Cor. 2.14 2 Cor. 3.5 Rom.