a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
that good work are not necessary to Salvation but onely by a necessity of presence lib. 4. de justit cap. 7. That necessity by his confession Protestants then acknowledge and he intends justification as is plain by the Subject he hath in hand Here then is nothing peculiar to faith to be meerly conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non Nâ—ither can we ascribe any more noble causality as to be a formall or meritorious cause as needs not to be proved The asserting of justification by faith therefore denotes that which we make an instrument in justification Now that the Antients assert that we are justified alone by faith putting in that exclusive particle that Papists are wont to say is not in Scriptures nor Fathers may be made good 1. By manifold authorities asserting it 2. By multitude of quotations Our Book of Homilies having quoted severall Scripture-Texts for justification by faith alone addes And after this-wise to be justified onely by this true and lively faith in Christ speaketh all the old and Antient Authors both Greek and Latine Ser. of Salvation par 2. pag. 16. And the Rhemists charging Protestants to foist the word onely into the Text in Rom. 3.28 Fulk replies You were best to charge all the Antient Fathers which use this term of whom we have received it to be Foysters and excluders of the Sacraments and good works The particle alone by faith in the article of justification was not first devised by us saith Chemnitius but was alwayes used with great consent in all Antiquity as examples out of the writings of the Fathers do demonstrate which sentences of the Fathers saith he are gathered by Robert Barnes Aepinus Bullinger Otho Corberus c. Loc. de justif pag. 772. Octavo And Chamier Panstrat Cathol Tom. 3. lib. 22. c. 5. having quoted Scripture that faith alone justifieth concludes so the Scripture is cleer with us The Fathers in order are to be reckoned up by me before I examine the exceptions of adversaries The induction of quotations yet remaines and I had it in my thoughts to have set down the words themselves which for the most part are very express but I find that that would be tedious to my self and wearisome to the Reader and divers of the Authors quoted to my hands I have not I shall content my self therefore to poynt out the Authors quoting them and the places quoted Ambrose in Roman 1. Rom. 3. Rom. 4. Rom. 20. 1 Cor. 1. Galat. 1. Galat. 3. and Sermon 45. if it be Ambroses is quoted by Chemnitius in the place mentioned who sayes that Ambrose repeats that exlusive particle onely fifteen times By Eckhardus Compend Theol. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 391. By Chamier loco citato Hilary lib 6. de Trinit Can. 8. in Matth. 21. is quoted by Chemnitius ibid. Fulk in Rom. 3.28 Chamier ibid. Davenant and Prideaux lect 5. Hieron in Rom. 4. Rom. 10. in Galat. 2. Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus ibid. Origen lib. 3. in Rom. cap. 3. and lib. 4. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus and Chamier ibid. Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 1 Rom. 3. Hom. 7. in Tit. 2. Hom. 3. Rom. 4. Hom. 8. Galat. 3. Serm. de side lege naturae is quoted by Chamier Eckhardus Fulk Davenant de Justit habit cap. 29. pag. 378. and Prideaux Lect. 5. pag. 164. Athanasius Orat. contra Arrianos is quoted by Eckhardus ibid. Basil Hom. de humil 51. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier Davenant ibid. Nazianzen Orat. 22.26 is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier ibid. Theodoret in Rom. 3. Ephes 2. is quoted by Eckhardus as also Therapeuticon Sept. by Chamier Bernard Serm. 22. in Cant. Epist 27. is quoted by Chamier Eckhardut Isychius in Levit. 14. lib. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Theophilact in Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Sedulius in Rom. 3. Rom. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Primasius in Rom. 4. Rom. 8. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Victor Mar. lib. 3. in Gens is quoted by Eckhard Fulk in Rom. 4. Petrus Chrysologus Ser. 34. Prosper Aquitan Epigram 9. are quoted by Chamier Ruffinus is quoted by Fulk Beda in Psal 77. pag. 71. by Davenant and Bp Vsher de statu success Eccles cap. 2. pag. 46. Gennadius in Rom. 3. Haymo in Rom. 1. Lyra in Galat. 3. Gloss Ordinaria in Epist Jac. is quoted by Chemnitius Theodolius in Rom. 3. Fortunatus in Expos Symboli Epiphanius in Ancor Phylast in Catal. Irenaeus adversus Haeres lib. 4. Haeres 5. Maxentius de fide are quoted by Eckhardus And because Papists say that Austin uses not this exclusive particle onely therefore Chemnitius tells us that it is used by him in Serm. Quadrages as also in his exposition of these words Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness which is in his 68. Serm. de tempore lin 1. also Tractat. 8. Tractat. 42. in Johan Contra duas Epistol Petil. lib. 3. Serm. 40. de verbis domini Chamier addes In octoginta tribus quaestionibus Quaest 76. Exposit in Galat. 3. Chemnitius having quoted these testimony that I have mentioned under his name addes we may then truly say with Erasmus that this word sole which is followed with so great clamours in this age in Luther is reverently read and heard in the Fathers So that we see a peculiar interest that faith hath in justification which belongs to no other grace And therefore it is no wonder that you who forsake all the reformed Churches that unanimously make it an instrument in justification are at such a stand as you are in Conclus 29. and 30. of your Confession what office in justification to assign to it you confess you cannot hit upon the true and full difference in the point of Conditionality in this work between saith and obedience which is no marvail seeing you oppose that which is indeed the difference and Faiths peculiar office which is the instrumentall interesting us in Christ by way of acceptation or apprehension as Isychius in the place quoted saith Sola fide apprehenditur non ex operibus The grace viz. of justification is apprehended by faith and not by works which is as plain a testimony as may be for the instrumentality of this grace Chemnitius yet further notes the way that Papists take to evade these testimonies Objecting that the Antients used that particle sole otherwise then we do and returns his answer 1. That they use the word sole or alone to exclude all other sects intending no more but that it is alone the Christian Faith and not the Jewish or Turkish that leads to Justification and Salvation And this rule Franc. à Sancta Clara produces from Vega Pag. 191. with no other approbation but that it is sometimes true and Chemnitius quite overthrowes it making it appear that when the Fathers speak of the application apprehension or acceptation of remission of sins by Faith they still
oppose it to works and not to other sects giving clear instances 2. They object That in the use of this particle sole the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith and Regeneration and denying only that the works of Infidels and unregenerate do justifie This Rule Franc. à Sanctae â— Clara doth produce out of Casalius but plainely enough signifies that it will not satisfie This Chemnitius also overthrowes by severall cleare testimonies out Origen and Ambrose 3. They object That by the particle sole the Fathers do exclude ceremoniall works and not all works which indeed is unworthy of answere the Law of Ceremonies being antiquated before their daies 4. Seeing none of these will hold Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas Quando aliquod commune multis tribuitur specialiter alicui illud provenit aut quia in illo excellentissimè reperitur aut quia primò reperitur in Quaest de veritate Quaest 14. artic 5. ad 12. When any thing that is common to many is attributed specially to one that comes to passe either because it is most eminent or because it is first in it which Rule might serve with some reason as applyed to this purpose for answer both to Scripture-texts and testimonies of Fathers in case they only said that we are Justified by Faith But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith but denies it to works and the Fathers do not only say that Faith Justifies but that Faith only Justifies and particularly exclude works this Rule therefore can do nothing here So that I conclude that Faith hath its office in Justification which other graces have not which is not by you denied And that this office is ascribed to Faith in words implying an instrumentality as in Scriptures so in the Fathers an no other office peculiar can be found for it according to your Confession therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers it Justifies as an instrument Before I go off this head let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux which you may find Lect. 5. de Justific Pag. 146. * Arminio minimè placuit ait ejus inter pres Corvinus quod fides dicitur instrumentalis Justificationis nostrae causa Bonâ igitur fide dic Armini pro tuo acumine qua ratione fides Justificat It did not saith he please Arminius as his interpreter Corvinus says that Faith should be called the instrumentall cause of our Justification Whereupon he addresses himself to him Tell us in good earnest O Arminius how it Justifies May not I put the same question to you He speaks for Arminius oâ—t of an Epistle of his to Hippolitus à Collibus the Palsgrave's Ambassadour The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere hoe est actum fidei dicit imputari in justitiam idque proprio sensu non Metonymicè quatenus objectum apprehendit in Ep. ad Hippolitum à Collibus principis Palatini legatum i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteousnesse and that in a proper not a Metonymicall sense as it apprehends the object which he there refutes But it will not serve you to answer thus For with you works justifie and yet you confesse that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative which agrees not to works in Justification We must either then yeeld that it Justifies as an instrument or shut it quite out from the office of Justification or plainely confesse we know not what office it hath in this work notwithstanding Scripture speaks so much of it and still in those words which in mens common Language denote an instrument The second That Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the Justifying act is with you as the former a notorious novelty and comes within the same Challenge And if the Contention be alone about the termes in case it be yeelded what would you be advantaged Seeing I doubt not but we may say that it was never in Terminis by the Ancients put to the question and so you in affirming that Faith in Christ quâ Lord is the Justifying act are in as notorious a novelty as we on the other hand in denying it you can no more find the one in the Ancients then your adversaries can find the other But if the question be about the thing it self I doubt not but many testimonies may be easily produced In order to which the state of the question as it is laid down between Protestants and their adversaries is to be looked into which is Whether the whole word of God be the object of Justifying Faith or the speciall promises of mercy in Christ Thus Bellarmine states it Lib. 1. de Justificatione cap. 4. and saith that the Heretiques restrain it to the promise of speciall mercy but Catholiques will have the object of Faith to be as large as the whole word of God Here Protestants yield somewhat to Bellarmine somewhat they deny They yield that the Faith which Justifies looks upon the whole word of God as its object that it believes the History of the Creation the narrative of the years of Mathusaleh the floud of Noah that it acknowledges the equity of all Gods Commands and a necessity of obedience but not as Justifying We willingly grant that Justifying Faith is an obedientiall affiance yet it is the affiance and noâ— the obedience nor yet the assent to truths formerly mentioned or the like that acts in Justification Your self say that obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification and the reforming party of Protestant Divines say the same in the consummation of it Now that these promises of speciall mercy or the blood of Christ held out in the free promises is the speciall object of Faith in this act of Justification and that it justifies as it applies such promises and doth interest the Soul in this blood may I suppose be made good by diverse testimonies Let that of Ambrose be consulted Lib. 1. Cap. 6. de Jacobo vitâ beatâ Non habeo unde gloriari in operibus meis possum non habeo unde me jactem ideo gloriabor in Christro Non gloriabor quia justus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui neque quia profuit mihi quisquam sed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis per quam mihi Christus advenit Propter me Christus mortem gustavit fructuosior culpa quam innocentia Innocentia arrogantem me fecerat culpa subjectum reddidit And that of Gregory in Ezek. Hom. 7. Justus igitur advocatus noster justos nos defendet in judicio quia nos ispos cognoscimus accusamus injustos Non ergo infletibus non in actibus nostris
mentions and not the sense 2. Saith he I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it but I find no reason from him but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus before his Aphorismes ever came to light and had I not been able to have given my self satisfaction I had been in that opinion if not before him yet before I had any light from him to lead me to it That horned Argument of his that if faith justifie as instrument it is either as an instrument in the hand of God or in the hand of man with his reasons against both I have made use of argumentandi causâ before any work of his saw the light 3. The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification I thought it saith he of dangerous consequence to say that man is the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins And I think every honest man should be of that mind and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made that Justification by faith in opposition to works makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The efficient and that Justification by works gives it to God onely If this be once made good I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith and that ever I opposed that self-denying man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works and shall hence forth conclude Where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law of faith Nay but by the Law of works There is added Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it but for the next viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onely assert this instrumentality but laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification it is say they that they fundamentally erre and we principally differ and that in these four Points Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers 1. About the formal cause of our righteousnesse which say these Divines is the formal righteousnesse of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde in the habitual righteousnesse of his humane nature and others the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which justifies which most of our forreign Reformers say is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sin by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof Adding his own censure I doubt not but all these four are great errours Of how dangerous consequence soever it is that man should be made the efficient of justifying and pardoning himself yet it had pass'd without controll if worse than this had not been vented by the learned of the reformed Religion It is yet well that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence that yet so many learned are on their party Those learned errours should be taken into further consideration and some that are learned have entred the lists with Mr. Baxter in them The second of these great errours he tells us is true and how a great errour can be true I cannot tell unlesse his meaning be that it is truly an errour which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures And when this second is true I cannot see and I think few of his Readers will see how the first to which it relates can be false If it be true that by Gods imputation of this righteousnesse of Christ we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ then that is true also that they say that Christ is our righteousnesse or that the righteousnesse of Christ of meer grace is made ours And how much good will is here shewen to the reforming part is too manifest in making one Party amongst them to hold The natural righteousnesse of Christs Divine nature is not our Justification that the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature is our Justification as Bellarmine did before him and is answered by Davenant de just habit p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander It being his singular opinion and another sayes This opinion was almost like Jonas his gourd that did presently wither As for the third the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onely and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause They onely say that saith is a full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood I shall request from him therefore a Latine Treatise for their better information in this thing and not to trouble Controversies in English with that in which his English Antagonists stand right himself being witnesse Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way Gomarus putting it to the question saith That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perswasion and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted That which followes I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers That which troubled me saith he was this to think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion For who can imagine but that young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion when they find that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause what wonder if they judg our cause naught It is a greater wonder that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices but have left this work to Mr. Baxter to give them light in this in which Reformers so erre and unreformed Papists stand right so that it must be his work not Bellarmines Stapletons Suarez or any others to unreform But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence that so eminent a man that is like if himself may be heard to draw away so many speaks out such Language let us oppose against him on the other hand Albertus Pighius whom those of his party as Peter Martyr saies loc com pag. 541. made their Achilles and thought that he alone by his subtile wit had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison Pighius
as signum voluntatis divinae being a manifestation of Gods pleasure concerning the justification of a sinner is sufficient So farre I shall willingly grant That which is to be asserted is 1. That this manifestation of Gods pleasure or signum voluntatis divinae before mentioned is the first ground work on which the whole work of justification is bottomed and goes before those graces but now mentioned which Mr. Baxter makes antecedent to justification This is plain The termes on which God will justifie must be understood before men can be brought to accept and come up to them 2. This manifestation of Gods will thus made knowne and by the power of the Spirit applyed to the soul in an unjustified condition works to humiliation regeneration faith and by faith to justification 3. This manifestation of Gods pleasure being applyed to a man already humbled regenerate and in faith finds him as we have heard before in a justified posture Though Faith in nature goes before justification as the cause before the effect yet they are in that manner simul tempore that none can conceive a believing man in an unjustified condition that so there should any intervall or time passe for conveyance of right by Gospel-grant to justification 4. This Gospel-grant or manifestation of Gods mind being thus tendred as before to a regenerate believing soul serves for ratification and confirmation of his justified condition to make good to such a believing son or daughter that their sinnes are forgiven To apply these assertions to our present purpose This manifestation of Gods pleasure Gospel-grant or signum voluntatis divinae or whatsoever else we call it in the first consideration justifies not Going before that which is antecedent to Justification as we see it does it cannot justify In the second consideration it works indeed to justification But if we yield this to Mr. Baxter he will not accept of it for he saies he does not thus speak of it and in this consideration it justifies not without faith but works faith in order to Justification By this man is preached forgivenesse of sins and by him all that believe are justified In the third consideration it justifies not seeing it finds the work done to its hands and onely serves for the work of assurance as in the last place is asserted So that all that can be said of this Gospel-grant donation or conveyance of right so often by Mr. Baxter mentioned in this work is 1. To make known Gods mind on what termes justification may be attained 2 By the power of the Spirit through faith to work it and finally to assure ratify and confirm it I shall the refore close this dispute if I may be allowed so to stile it in the words of Chemnitius in his Common place de justificat mihi pag. 797. octavo Having spoken to the causes of justification he saith It is altogether necessary that there be application made of these causes to the person to be justified Omnino verò necesse est fieri applicationem harum causarum ad personam justificandam Nam quotquot receperunt eum his fecit potestatem filios Dei fieri Joan. 1.12 3.33 Et Modus seu medium applicationis seu apprehensionis docendi gratiâ vocatur causa instrumentalis Duplex autem est causa instrumentalis 1. Docens Patefaciens Offerens et Exhibens beneficia justificationis per quam Deus nobis communicat illa bona et haec est vox Evangelii et usus sacramentorum vel sicut veteres loquntur verbum vocale et visibile For as many as received him to them he gave power to be made the Sons of God John 1.12 and 3. v. 33. And this manner or medium of application or apprehension speaking to mens capacity is called a cause instrumental And this instrumentall cause is twofold 1. Teaching Opening Offering and Exibiting the benefits of justification by which God doth communicate unto us those gifts And this is the Word of the Gospel and use of Sacraments or as the Ancients speak the Word vocal and visible 2. Receiving or apprehending 2. Recipiens seu apprehendens quâ nobis applicamus illa bona quae in Evangelio offeruntur ita ut eorum participes reddamur Est igitur quasi manus Dei traders et hominis manus suscipiens id quod traditur Supra autem testimonia et annotata et explicata sunt solam fidem non ulias alias vel qualitates vel opera in nobis esse medium applicationis whereby we apply those gifts to our selves which are offered in the Gospel that we may be made partakers of them There is therefore the hand of God as it were delivering and the hand of man receiving that which is delivered And testimonies are both observed and above explained that onely faith sand no other qualities or works in us is the medium of application SECT VI. A fourth Corollary from the former Doctrine AS Christians must see that they be aright principled in this Gospel-doctrine of the righteousnesse of faith Christians must get assurance that they do act according to these principles so also they must get assurance that they act according to these principles which I might urge respective to all that which is required of a man of Gospel-righteousnesse But having already spoke to that purpose in pressing the necessity of the answer of conscience unto Sacramental engagements I shall here onely urge it respectively to that grace which immediately interests us in this righteousnesse which is the grace of faith as we see in the Text which is confest to be the grace that receives Christ even by those that deny the instrumentality of it in our Justification If this righteousnesse which is our Justification be the righteousnesse of Faith then those that are void of faith must needs be wanting in this righteousnesse and Christ being the end of the Law for righteousnesse to those that believe those that persist in unbelief never attain to this end And howsoever zealous they may otherwise appear yet they come short of righteousnesse for life and salvation Giving assent to all Gospel-truths perhaps upon the principles of their education they may not onely have the repute but also enjoy all outward priviledges of believers yet wanting that work upon their will or if you please in their affections to receive Christ and close with him they yet have not Christ nor life in him and therefore upon this account there is all reason to hearken to that of the Apostle Especially to see to their faith 2 Cor. 13.5 Examine your selves whether ye be in the faith prove your own selves Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be Reprobates In which words we see the Apostles exhortation and his reason annext The exhortation calls us to self-examination to a self-tryal an inquisitive experimental tryal The question to be put or thing to be proved or brought to upon
desired to be found as I think in judgment not having his own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith I think he could find no other which would be as a Screen or cover to hide sin or keep off the wrath of God He knew nothing by himself He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent Yet he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience they are all within the command of the Law and I dare not rest there for Justification And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousnesse You farther say in in the place quoted They that will needs to the great disgrace of their understandings deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgment muâ—t either say that there is no Judgment or that all are Condemned or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation as its distinct species but some men shall then be judged who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch I know no Justification to be expected then specifically distinct from that which did precede I would for the bettering of my understanding learn whether this Justification at the day of Judgment be not a Justification of men already justified yea of men already in possession of their Crown except of those who then are found alive though not compleat in regard of the absence of the body I have fought a good fight says the Apostle I have finished my course henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousnes 2 Tim. 4.7 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown This must needs be unlesse we will be of the Mortalists Judgment to deny any separate existence of the Soul Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping both of them against the Apostle who saith To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.8 And upon that account had a desire to depart be with Christ Phil. 1.23 which present advantage seem'd to him to over-weigh or at least to ballance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labour surviving Your third distinction is between the Physicall operation of Christ and his benefits on the intellect of the Believer per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the morall conveiance of right to Christ and his benefit which is by an act of law or Covenant-donation If you call the first a Justification then very bad men in the Church on earth and the worst of Devils in hell may be justified They may have such operations upon their understanding You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith and this morall conveyance of right Your fourth distinction is between those two question What justifieth ex parte Christi and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris Which as it is laid is without exception Your fifth is between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non et cum qua Which I can scarse tell whether to approve or disapprove with your comment upon it I have spoken to it Your last distinction is between Christs meriting mans Justification and this actuall justifying him by constitution or sentence which as the fourth is above exception Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration 1. You say Christ did merit our Justification or a power to Justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant This I imbrace with thanks and do believe that it will draw more with it 2. You say Christ doth justifie constistutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e Quoad valorem rei he conferreth it Ut dominus gratis benefaciens But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi Ut Rector et Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the New Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer remission and constitute us righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer but joyntly Ut Benefactor et Rector Hereto me are termini novi and Theologia nova But let the terms alone of Dominus Redemptor Rector Benefactor That which you ascribe to Christ in this place so far as I understand Scripture still gives to the Father Christ gave himself for us indeed according to his Fathers command but the Father gives him to us and he that gave his Son appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish John 3.16 So that this New Law if you will call it so is of the Fathers appointment John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life And in this sense if we will follow Scripture The Father justifies Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that Justifies whche is that condemneth Christs work is to work us into a posture to obtain it The Father judicially acts in it 3. You say Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Answ If he justifie by sentence Then he condemnes by sentence when yet he says J 1.47 He judges that is condemnes none The truth is as the Psalmist speaks God is Judge himself Psal 50.6 and the Apostle tells us he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by the man whom he hath ordained Act. 17.31 This unquestionably Christ doth as King but in this Kingly power he is no other then the Fathers Agent who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion Psal 2.6 He is therefore at the Fathers right hand as prime in power for that work Those that are next to him that is chief are so seated and Zebedees Children look'd for it in Christs temporall Kingdome When this is done Christs mediatory power will be finished and he shall give up his Kingdome to the Father 4. You say Sententiall Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification That in Law being quoad sententiam but vertuall Justification Answ To this I have spoken upon the first distinction 5. You say Faith justifies not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a reall impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say to justifie is not to make such a reall change c. Answ To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith The works ancedent to this of Justification as Humiliation Regeneration faith imply a reall change Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul
one many are made righteous 5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the sacrifice of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 6. As Christ frees us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittall from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Acts 13.38 But Christ frees us from the curse in suffering as a sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree I said in my Treatise of the Covenants there are severall acts of justifying saith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-denyal Gideons or Sampsons valour that was their justification but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they and I doubt not but he overtopt them yet he was not thereby justified Here are many exceptions taken 1. At the phrase an act of justification with much ado made to know my meaning when I had thought all had well enough understood it You would fancy that I mean that justification it self acts speaking of it not as an object but an efficient but I must acquaint you that it implies that justification acts when I speak of the acts of justification as it doth that harvest works when I speak of harvest-work I mean acts tending to justifie or exercis'd in or about justification 2. It is demanded Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of justification The proper importance of your words say you is for the former but that say you is a dangerous untruth giving in v. 13. as an exception against it Answ I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith in that indefinite speech of mine which you cannot make necessarily to be universall You have justly made exception of one vers 13. which in my ministeriall way preaching on those words I have interpreted as you say our Divines do It seeâ—s by you that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me 3. You tell me you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideons valour acts of justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean say you that these acts are fruits of faith it is true or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul c. Answ And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith Is not this his error as the former is mine I pray you what was that work of faith that the Apostle mentions 1 Thes 1.3 Faith wrought and acted somewhat 4. You demand what mean you to say obedience and valour was not their justification Answ If no act of faith sano sensu by an ordinary Metonymy may be said to be justification make then a comment upon the Apostles words Rom. 4.3 where to overthrow justification by works and to establish justification by faith he sayes Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness which is as much as it was his justification That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification is not unfitly called justification Faith in Christs blood is such a plea and therefore not unfitly called our justification Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two Then how come you to say next say you that it is Christ's blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification c. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been which is the justifying act of faith and which not And therefore when you denyed those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to find the true act asserted but in stead of that I find the opposite number is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the controversie Whether it be accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt Hâ—re you meet with the greatest advantage that I think in my Treatise you any where find when I say these acts were not their justification and put in opposition but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties but each one may see and some have said that before we read this objection of yours that it is plain that I meant it Sâ—venthly you tell me It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech Answ I believe you think that justifying faith includes in it all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions as Faith Dogmatical or Historical and in all that had the gift of miracles Faith-miraculous They had not one faith whereby they had their interest in Christ and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths and a third whereby they wrought miracles And to say that we are justified by such assent or they by such miracles I think were a speech more then improper You say further That by justifying faith I must mean the act habit or renewed faculty And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts that I should mean the last Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute whether that the acts and habits of mans soul are of so distinct a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same To which I say no more for answer but that I shall take it for granted till I see as yet I do not convincing reason against it Eighthly you tell me that 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelio for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not Justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Answ I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words as to the first branch He was one whose heart as John speaks condemn'd him not but your reason why he was not therby justified is very strange Because say you that it is God onely that is his Judge And thus then the Apostle argues God onely is Judge to justifie But my innocency or integrity is not God Therefore it doth not justifie It seemes that Abrahams works
writers of note much differing one from the other in one particular subject I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification Your Reader may well judge that he is amongst those that you say Confes pag. 459. you may safely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls that they take heed of Where you warn all such that they take heed of their doctrine who make the meer receiving of that is affiance in the righteousness of Christ to be the sole condition of their first justification excluding Repentance and the reception of Christ as a Teacher and King and Head and Husband from being any condition of it yea and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement who call that affiance only by the name of justifying faith and all other acts by the name of works And as to that which you here assert that he speaks as much as you for the interest of works in justification you may conceit it but those that have perused him will hardly be induced to assent to it Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant then faith only (m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur conditio quà m verae vivae fidei In this Covenant saith he cap. 30. de Justit act pag. 396 there is no other condition then that of true faith required to obtain Reconciliation Justification and life eternall And having quoted Rom. 3.16 Rom. 4.5 Gal. 3.8 he adds Justification therefore and right to life eternall is suspended upon condition of faith alone But good works are also required of justified men not to constitute a state of justification or demerit life eternall but to yield obedience and testifie thankfulness towards God who justified us freely and hath markt out that way for their walk whom he hath designed for the kingdome of glory How is it (n) Justificatio igitur jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur non ad constituendum statum justificationis aut promerendam vitam aeternam sed ad exhibendam obedientiam testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum qui nos gratuito justificavit atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit then Haec gratia sc inhaerens ut saepe dictum est est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis that again and again as he says himself hath said that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification pag. 317 If he thus interest works in Justification how he will be reconciled to himself where in the passage before quoted he says that They that affirme that man is Justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of Mans salvation in Justification alone to God but ascribe some part to themselves And in all that you quote out of him Pag. 319 c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first and second part of Justification Because having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant concerning the imputation of Christs active obedience in which they scarce differ in termes yet afterwards adds Though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification So that did not the Covenant of grace interpose grosse and wicked waies would cut off our Justification and put us in a state of condemnation If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant which I doubt not may be done this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself Passages of this kind only you quote out of Davenant which are as much opposite to himself as to the Author now mentioned SECT VI. Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace THe next you enter upon is a Query How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant Opposing your self against that Position of mine Chap. 33. Pag. 245. The men in impenitency and unbelief that lie in sin and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ live in a continuall breach of Covenant Here you confesse that I cite no words of yours and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you To which I say that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted which you seem to do Aphor. Thes 34. Pag. 163 Where you say That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken But before I enter upon the thing it self Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God This is clear They that break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if are in Covenant The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise and bâ—each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant Jer. 34.18 The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant and had not performed the words of Covenant And those that thus transgressed Covenant did likewise as wee see there enter into Covenant But these as you affirm break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it Therefore it follows that they are in Covenant And as the Covenant is that they transgresse such the Covenant is that they enter They do not enter one Covenant and transgresse another They transgresse a reall and not equivocall halfe-erring Covenant It is therefore a reall and not an equivocall halfe-erring Covenant that they enter And as this clearly follows from hence so that from you prosition that immediatly goes before it That Christs passive obedience and merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace it clearly follows Universall Redemption overthown That there is no universall Redemption by Christs Death or satisfaction If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace then he died not for the sins of all This is clear But according to you he died not to make satisfaction for their sin that thus stand guilty Therefore he died not for the sins of all Yea it will follow that he dyed for the lesser part only of those that make profession of his name Seeing the greater part die in impenitency and unbelief Yea it will follow that he dyed for the Elect only For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect All others
former as is concluded by Interpreters we must understand the like or somewhat much like it in the latter Man will have like immortality in sin as he had omniscience by sin Therefore he puts and keeps him out of Paradise that now being deprived of the thing he might not delude himself in the outward sign or Sacramental representation of it Sixthly It remains therefore that these trees were set apart of God from other trees of the garden for a Sacramental use having no more power of themselves to confer life or knowledge then water in Baptisme or bread and wine in the Lords Supper to conferre pardon of sin or spiritual life on the soul g Arbor igitur vitae non ab in sita vivificandi facultate sed à Sacramentali signifâ—câ—tione sic dicta est The tree of life was so called saith Wollebius not from any innate quickning faculty but from a Sacramental signification Paraeus indeed putting it to the question whether the tree of life be so called by reason of the effect that it had produced had man stood or by way of signification saith these two opinions in his judgment may be joyned and sayes h Sine dubio habitura erat haec arbor seu ut cibus seu ut medicina vim conservandi hominis sanitatem vitam ne corpora vergerent in senium aut sentirent defecâ—um donec in coelestem immortalitatem transirent Deinde data fuit homini in vitae Sacramentum The tree might give life as food or as physick and preserve from age till man should be translated into an heavenly immortality and then proceeds to shew how it is a Sacrament of life But sure these opinions are altogether inconsistent Sacraments are so signs that they are not physical causes of the thing that is signified If they had any such effect in nature then all mystery in the Sacrament ceased and there needed no word from God to clear it every man would know that food hath a natural tendency to life and physick to health if there were no Scripture If we were able to make it good that they were physical causes of life and knowledge then we must disclaime their Sacramental use but seeing that cannot appear and the contrary is evident This other must be asserted It may easily be made out that the tree of life was a Sacramen Man was to put forth his hand to eat of it as the Jewes did the Passeover and we do the Lords Supper i Voluit igitur hominem quoties fructum arboris illius gustaret in memoriam revorareunde vitam haberet ut se agnosceret non propria virtute sed Dei unius beneficio vivere Neqâ—e esse intrinsecum bonum ut vulgo loquuntur sed à Deo provenire And as often as he ate of it or had his eye upon it as Calvin well observes he was to remember from whom he received life and blisse and by whom he was preserved and upheld that he had no principle of life and blisse in himself but as he received it from God so by his favour and free Grace it was continued And to mind himself of his duty on what tearms he stood with God and upon what condition his life and blisse was continued whilest he sinned not he must not dye as long as obedience lasted he must enjoy a life in happiness Others add that it shadowed out Christ by whom both he and the Angels stood in happinesse but I have already spoke my thoughts to that particular But how to bring that other tree of the knowledge of good and evil so aptly to hold out the nature and use of a Sacrament is not so easie and I find many Interpreters asserting it but not any that I can meet with demonstrating it And it must be confest that this Sacrament did herein differ from all other Sacraments Those did consist in their use This in mans abstinence from it In this it is said thou shalt not eat In the Passeover and the Lords Supper the communitants must eat But God hath it in his power to institute Sacraments according to pleasure by way of prohibition as well as by way of injunction In other Sacraments in the due use men attain to the good that is promised In this by abstinence man should have avoyded the evil threatned In eating of the tree of life while man persisted in obedience he was assured of life that was a seal and pledge of it And while he abstained from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he had like assurance of freedom from death This alone was a negative Sacrament and it was proper to this Sacrament onely that not the fruition of good but the avoydance of evil was the thing signified The reason of the name is the enquiry of many why it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Some that would deny it to be any Sacrament say that it had the name from the natural effect that it was apt to produce being created to quicken or ripen man in the use of his reason conceiving that our first Parents were created weak in knowledge of an infant understanding And to know good and evil that is choose the good and refuse the evil in the Hebrew phrase setting out the use of reason as Esay 7.16 Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good They say this tree was to work them to this maturity in knowledge How false this is of our first Parents weaknesse in knowledge is clear by the names that man gave to all creatures upon sight as he had dominion over them so he understood the nature of them as also in that speech that he uttered concerning Eve when the Lord upon her creation brought her to him to give her in marriage The Wise man sayes that God made man upright Eccles 7.29 And this uprightnes comprizes mans whole conformity to God in all in which his image doth consist which was as the Apostle tells us in knowledge as in righteousnesse and true holinesse Col. 3.10 To avoid suspition of inclination to any such opinion some when they speak of mans first estate purposely avoid the word innocency and choose to use the word integrity And how unapt the fruit of a tree could possibly be in nature to produce any such effect that which was spoken concerning the tree of life being applyed hither may demonstrate And whence this opinion came but from the Devil I cannot tell who told our mother Eve that God did know that in the day that they eat thereof their eyes should be opened and they should be like unto gods knowing both good and evil Gen. 3.5 He was the first that vented it and she was the first that believed it when she saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eye and a tree to be desired to make one wise she did take and eat thereof Gen. 3.6 The taste
that we receive as Sacraments whether extraordinary as the Cloud the Red-Sea Manna and the Rock which the Apostle parallells with Baptisme and the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 10.1 2. But also in the ordinary stated Sacraments by a standing law to be observed In Circumcision there was a foreskin to be cut off in the Passeover a Lambe to be eaten In Baptisme there is water to be applyed and in the Lords Supper bread and wine to be taken eaten and drunk God condescending in mercy to our weakness by earthly things to informe our judgments and strengthen our faith in that which is heavenly Though Papists are much put to it to find an outward sign in some of their Sacraments as indeed in some of them there is none at all yet they yeeld to this truth that Sacraments have their signs knowing that to be a true though not a full definition tnat a Sacrament is an outward visibie sign of an inward spiritual grace That we may come to a right understanding of Sacramental signs we must First know what a sign in general is Secondly the several sorts and kinds of signs so farre at least as will conduce to a right understanding of the point in hand and Lastly enquire what Sacramental signs are and their properties What is meant by a sign A sign Austin hath long since defined to be that which shewes it self to the senses and somewhat more besides it self to the understanding and in other words a Signum estres praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex sefaciens in cogitationem venire A sign is a thing which brings to mens thoughts another thing besides that which it offers to the senses As the Rain-bowe offers it self to the eyes we see the shape of it and the colours in it and brings the promise of God into our minds that the Floud shall no more return to destroy the earth It were an endless labour to undertake to lay down the several kinds of signes with all their sub-divisions I never saw such a Scheme of them but I have thought many more might be added to them Neque enim hujus generis quisquam enmeravit omnia nascuntur enim nova pro homi num arbitrio Pulling Deca 5. Ser. 6. A distribution of signs Natural signs yet those at least that are notable may be reduced to certayn heads Some are naturall some are prodigious and some are signs by institution Natural signs are those that of themselves and of their own nature are apt to signifie somewhat beyond themselves As smoke signifies fire a Rain-bowe showres palenese sickness Teares trouble and grief of mind of these Christ speaks Matth. 16.2 3. When it is evening ye say It will be fair weather for the skie is red and in the morning It will be foul weather to day for the skie is red and lowring Now these signes are sometimes as signes so also causes of the thing signified As the Sun beames in the dawning are a sign and also a cause of the day approaching The interposition of the Moon between us and the Sun and of the earth between the Sun and Moon foreseen in their motions are signs and causes of Eclipses Sometimes they are effects of the thing that they signifie As smoke is the effect of fire and paleness of diseases Some are barely signs and neither causes nor effects as the colour of the skie is no cause of rain but barely an indication that there are those watry vapours in the air that will dissolve themselves on the earth They may be effects of that which is the cause of the thing signified but not the effects of that which is a sign The Rain-bowe is an effect of that which is a cause of rain Rules for the right understanding of natural signs Remote causes are not signs Here we might lay down some rules or observations First Remote causes which have their effects at a great distance so that many things may interpose themselves as remoraes cannot be looked upon by any as signs When that book of common-prayer was imposed by authority upon Scotland upon counsel then over-much heeded it might have been easily concluded upon as a sign of troubles and dissensions in present there But no rational man could then have made it a prognostick of all those tragical stirs which in three Nations have already happened and we yet know not upon the flame kindled what may follow The spark then kindled might in probability have been quenched The Stars say our Stargazers have their influence upon mens bodies and by consequence indirectly upon the operations of their soules Hereupon by the posture of the Stars at mens birth they will conclude the trade of life in which men shall be employed the Arts that they shall profess the fortunes as the world calls them to which they shall be advanced and the very last period of their dayes But here so many things may interpose that the childs Genius supposedly thus disposed cannot sway all these things Parents friends wayes of Education thousands of obstacles and diversifications so intervene that no judgement can be given If more were granted then ever will be proved of the heavens influence on mens minds and bodies to incline or dispose them yet that of the Wise man would utterly spoyle all Predictions Eccles 9.11 The race is not to the swift nor the battel to the strong neither yet bread to the wise nor yet riches to men of understanding nor yet favour to men of skill but time and chance happeneth to them all Seeondly Partial causes in nature cannot be looked upon as signs Patrial causes are no signs but all must concurre that have any influence This if I do not mis-remember good Mr. Perkins doth set down in a similitude to this purpose The heat of an Hen sitting upon Eggs is the cause of a brood of young ones but suppose an Hen should sit on Eggs of divers kinds some of a Dove some of a Partridge some of a Phesant some of a Hawk some of a Kite who could now from the heat of the Hen give his judgement of what kind the birds should be that this heat would hatch would they not be different in kind according to the variety of subjects that this heat works upon If we see flint before us this is no sign of fire to be kindled unless we see steele with it nor yet flint and steele without tinder nor yet flint steele and tinder without a hand employed to strike fire all put together make up a sign and not otherwise To apply this to our purpose First Let it be granted that the heavens have their operations on mens bodies on earth no otherwise then the heat of the Hen hath for procreation of such a kind or the flint to the working of fire yet the heavens have their influence upon divers and diversified objects not diversified by their influence only but done to their hands
Chron. 30.18 19. The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God the Lord God of his fathers though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary The answer of the Lord we have ver 20. The Lord hearkened to Hezekiah and healed the people which doth either imply that they were struck of God for their sin as was Abimelech his wife and maid servants and were healed by Hezekiahs prayer as they by Abrahams or else that by their sin they were in danger of Gods hand and by Hezekiahs prayer preserved so that enough hath been said for this distinction between a first and second right a fundamental right and priviledg of actual admission There may be a true right when yet there is a barre that stands in force SECT V. Proposition 4. AS the fundamental right to Sacraments must be grounded on the written Word of God so the barre to actuall admission must be written likewise Fundamental right and bar to actual admission must be both written None may be admitted without known right their visible Covenant-title must appear in such case a seal would be put to a blank and the Ordinance prophaned It was therefore provided that no uncircumcised person must eat of the Passeover Exod. 12.48 and none in Covenant in right that stand in any visible relation to God without a known barre may be kept back There must be a reason seen of their admission and a reason seen of their suspension The sin of those of Ephraim Manasseh Issachar and Zebulon was that they ate of the Passeover otherwise then was written There was that barre upon them that according to the written Word they were not in present to eat of it He that gives warranty to his people to come must also put in the exception against those that are to be denyed No Person no Church must take in or refuse by their own power this were to Lord it over Gods heritage and an high usurpation of a power not put into their hands Stewards in great houses are to take in and hold back from the family not at their own will but according to their Masters pleasure SECT VI. Proposition 5. THis right unto or barre put to detain from Sacramental participation is not alwayes explicite and expresse Right unto or barre to detain from Sacramental participation is not alwayes and explicite it is sufficient that by a clear and full consequence from Scripture it may be deduced The fundamental title is clear and before cleared It is the Covenant that gives a title the outward Covenant is a sufficient title to all outward priviledges prove a Covenant made kept or not kept if not renounced and then a right stands The right unto or barre put to present acceptance is often more disputable which the written Word in expresse termes or by necessary consequence must also determine When those were kept back by reason of a touch of a dead body from eating the Passeover Num. 9. there was no expresse precept in the Law for such prohibition of them but seeing such were to be kept out of the Campe Num. 5.2 and they must be clean that eat of the offerings of the Lord they were evidently included and it appears that they saw it And when the Lord himself names those barres which in after times should withhold an Israelite from the Passeover the instances which he gives are no sufficient explicite enumeration It is there said that he that is in a journey could not eat of the Passeover neither could he that was in prison or imployed in war or under sicknesse One legal uncleanness is there named which did defile there were other defilements as well as that which disabled an Israelite actual participation Num. 5.2 Onely those that inferre such consequences must be able to make good their consequences and take heed of framing principles of their own and then deduce consequences from them were this heeded the door would not be set so wide open as many complaine not yet kept too narrow as perhaps there may be cause of complaint according to many mens rules though according to their practice perhaps there is no such great cause of grievance perhaps the grievance may be found on the other hand SECT VII Proposition 6. Rules for actuall admission and bars put in Old Testament times were more explicite and expresse IN Old Testament-times Scripture-rules for mens actual admission and barres put to detain them were more explicitely delivered When men according to the rule of the Sanctuary were to be received or denyed as other circumstances of like nature were then more punctually delivered and fitted to the Churches minority which was taught as a child with a feskue In Gospel-times when there is more light and the Church hath attained further growth as it doth not need so we do not find such punctual direction The nature and use of the Sacraments being known together with the end of their institution general Scripture-rules observed that all is to be done to edification and the end of the Ministerial function compared for the perfecting of the Saints for the edifying of the body of Christ It may be more easily collected to whom the Sacraments may be of use and to whom they will be unserviceable SECT VIII Proposition 7. Admission unto the Sacrament of initiation is facile THere being a double Sacrament in the Church both in the Old and New Testament one for initiation into the Church visible the other for confirmation one in which it is sufficient having a due title to be passive and the other such in which we must be active Admission unto the Sacrament of initiation seems more facile whether it be of grown persons in the first plantation of Churches upon conversion from Gentilisme Judaisme or any other way distinct from Christianity or of infants that are confederate with their parents and though some lay it down as a Maxime Adultorum eadem est ratio utriusque There is the same reason for admission of men of years to either Sacrament yet it is but gratis dictum Neither any Scripture text nor solid argument drawn from thence doth evince it Lesse is expected in a childs entry into the School or a youths matriculation into the University then in the time of growth and further proficiency Professed Disciples are taken into the Church by Baptisme to learn but they must be proficients as shall appear before they are able to make improvement of the Supper For infants there can be no barre at all for their initiation There is no barre to the initiation of infants in confederation on with their Parents They that hold that Sacraments conferre grace non ponenti obicem that is upon all such that put no barre or obstacle to it do withall conclude and undenyably if they can make good their Position that all infants in Baptisme are regenerate seeing they put no actuall barre either by sin or
and takes to other objects that is to me sufficient Or will it follow that either the Eunuch did or must necessarily be presumed to understand upon that little acquaintance that it seems he yet had in the Gospel the whole of those choyce observations or can it be any way certainly collected that such a Confession that he made was accompanied with a present saving work But Mr. Baxter hath singularly engaged me to him quoting those Texts John 11.25 26 27. John 1.49 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 he addes Here is more then right to Baptisme Then a man may have right to Baptisme that is short of those great priviledges of dwelling in God and being born of God and I scarce know what to say more for my own opinion It further followes If you think as you seem by your answer to do that a man may assent to the truth of the Gospel with all his heart and yet be void of justifying faith you do not lightly erre It followes not I think from any thing that I have said that I am in any such opinion That Expression is in Philips words and I have told you he might require de bene esse that which is not necessary to the esse of Baptisme But in case I be in any so heavy an Error I am thus holpen out of it Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the regenerate yet not with all his heart Christ saith Matth. 13. The Word hath not rooting in him It is then granted that he may believe all truths and that which is added to prove that he cannot believe them with his whole heart is not with me convincing The Word had not root not because they did not intirely from the heart assent to it But because they received it not in the love of it They received the light to inform their judgments not any thorow heat for the warmth of their affections There followes Doubtlesse whether or no the practical understanding do unavoidably determine the will yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the will unsanctified which must be said if the dogmatical faith that is the Intellectual assent of a wicked man be as strong as that of a true believer Here is suggested that I say that the Intellectual assent of a wicked man is as strong as that of a true believer I know not where I have said it or any thing that implies it It may be a true assent though not of that strength But if I had said it will it thence follow that God doth sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the will unsanctified I trow not Is every strong Intellectual assent sanctified is every Intellectual assent which is of equal strength with that in the regenerate truly sanctified Clearnesse of light commands assent to truths when corruption of affections will not suffer that at least pro hic nunc that the goodnesse or bestnesse if I may so say should be believed I believe it is as strong in the Devils as in any Regenerate man in the world I know not how it fares with some whom God may exercise more gently respective to temptations and Satans Buffettings I am sure that there are those that would sometimes freely give up all that is dear to them in the world to be as clear in some fundamental truths as Satan himself he doubtlesse injects Scruples where himself is without scruple I know some question whether there be any such thing as faith in divels notwithstanding James saith The Devils believe and tremble But certain it is there is an Intellectual assent to Divine truth in the Devils as we may see Matth. 8.29 Mark 3.11 Luk. 4.41 Acts 19.15 and yet there is no sanctification wrought And therefore though the wicked match the regenerate in assent in their understanding it will not follow that their understandings therefore are truly sanctified I am further referr'd to Dr. Downam against Mr. Pemble which is not in my hands and whether my answer be equal to silence as is in the close affirmed I must leave to the Reader to determine Advertisements given to Mr. Baxter touching his undertaking for Mr. Firmin IN a distinct Section Mr. Baxter lets us know how good a mind he had to have appeared in this cause for Mr. Firmin which wonderful change in him may well be my admiration All know that have looked into my Birth-priviledge that I delivered the same things there as in my Treatise of the Covenant I have asserted against Mr. Firmin and that past with Mr. Baxter if reports have not deceived me with good approbation I communicated to him a considerable part of my defence of it against Mr. T. his letter in Manuscripts and I blush not to tell the Reader that he applauded it And besides what I have produced already out of him I have a witnesse of reverend esteem that he hath said that I had given him in discourse full satisfaction of the title of unregenerate men or some phrase parâ—llell to Sacraments But in case upon change of judgment he will appear for Mr. Firmin in this particular and that meerly as he sayes in love of the truth least the reputation of man should cloud it and in love to the Church and the lustre of the Christian name lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianity seem no better then the other Religions of the world Further explaining himself For I fear this loose doctrine so he is pleased to call it of Baptisme will do more to the pollution of the Church then others loose doctrine of the Lords Supper or as much If upon these specious pretences he hath still a mind to it I shall crave leave to offer some words by way of advice to him First To reconcile himself to Mr. F. they being as yet so far from agreement either in judgment or in practice both of them are gone out of the road of the Reformed Churches but Mr. Baxters friend for whom he is about to undertake as to his judgment is yet in the lower form when he is in the upper Mr. F. requires not truth of grace to make a visible Church-member but declares himself very largely against it he requires not truth of grace in a parent to entitle his child in the right of Baptisme It is enough with him that he be a man of knowledge and free from scandal which he well knowes to be the case of many in unregeneration And though Mr. Baxter is thus gone beyond him in judgment yet he sits down far short of him in practice and sayes that we are bound to baptize all those that make an outward profession and consequently their children when Mr. F. upon tender conscienciously refuses many of them Mr. F. and I are as I suppose upon neerer terms of accord then Mr. F. and Mr. Baxter both of us agreeing that unregenerate men have their title and a faith that is short of justifying may
over to any such powers But exclusion from and admission to other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency to which all are not promiscuously admitted as private Fasts and doubtful disputations Matth. 9. Rom. 14. is left to prudence and not to the exercise of any juridick power Ergo. Reason 10 Lastly If this be an act of jurisdiction to admit to the Sacrament and keep off from it then there must be a Law of Jesus Christ in it a Gospel-Ordinance for it This is plain Jesus Christ hath not left to his Officers an arbitrary Goverment he hath left no Commission to rule at pleasure as they are to speak so they are to act according to his will and pleasure known But no such Law no such Ordinance of Jesus Christ is found in Scriptures A command we have in the Gospel for administration of Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords Supper and Covenant-interest is our Directory as you have heard to lead us to those that have fundamental interest in them But concerning exclusion of any thus enrighted there is nothing by way of Ordinance written Therefore this can be no act of jurisdiction The Assumption is that which many will question It lyes upon them then to quote this Law to make known this Ordinance of Jesus Christ But instead of that I shall shew upon what grounds it yet appears to me that there is none at all If any such be it is either in plain and full words exprest such as the Law given to Israel to put out of the Camp every leper and every one that hath an issue or is defiled by the dead Numb 5.1 2. or else it must be such as is deduced by fair consequence from the nature and use of the Sacrament or preparation to it or benefit received by it That there is no Ordinance in such plain full words needs not to be doubted In all that enquiry into this so much controverted businesse it would have been long since produced In case it be deduced from any such consequence as hath been spoken it will hardly be made good to be an instituted Law or constituted Ordinance Mr. Firmin hath well excepted against the proof of institutions by syllogismes though to his great disadvantage in that dispute of a Church-Covenant Where there is an Ordinance in power as there was for exclusion from the Passeover proof may be made up by consequence for the latitude to discern who those be that are within the verge of it and concerned in it But consequences will hardly prove the enacting and instituting of it I shall be willing to gratifie Mr. Tombs in this that parity of reason will set up no institution A good cause is wronged when Ordinances of this nature are pretended and cannot be produced and on the other hand when a Ministeriall prudence in the Stewards of Christ is undervalued which might supply it Let it be granted that there is no Ordinance to debar an unexcommunicated man from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet a promiscuous admission will not follow when the end and use of the Sacrament is considered it will appear to them that have the care and charge about it that some are not in a present aptitude for it There is command for the preaching of the Word in a way to edification 1 Cor. 143 12. yet the particular way of application suitable to mens capacities so as to give milk to babes and children and strong meat to those of growth that have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil is not done by any vertue of any specifick particular institution but the Ministers prudence VVhich prudence was exercised by Paul 1 Cor. 3.1 2. Heb. 5.12 by Christ himself Joh. 16 12. There is no Ordinance for admission to or exclusion from private Fasts or punctual direction who are to be called and received or who past by yet our Saviour Christ from the high nature of the duty concludes that it is not for novices in the faith And as it is a point of prudence not to put a piece of new cloth in an old garment unwrought cloth some understand there will be a double inconvenience the weaknesse of the one will not bear the strength of the other and so the rent that was before will be made greater and the whole garment become uncomely and unsuitable nor yet to put new wine which is windy and working into old bottles the weaknesse of such a vessel being not able to bear it so neither had it been a point of prudence in our Saviour Christ to have put such an austere discipline upon the necks of his newly entred disciples Matth. 7.6 vindicated If any shall object that Text Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto dogs neither cast ye pearles before swine as I know it is produced as an Ordinance for the withholding of this Sacrament from those that are ignorant and scandalous I shall desire the Reader for answer to take it into consideration whether it be not more agreeable to the Text to make it an exhortation to an holy prudential circumspection in the dispensation of holy things in general whether in a private or a publick way then to make it a distinct peculiar Ordinance about any one piece or part of worship Making it a peculiar Ordinance we shall run our selves upon inextricable difficulties Our Saviour laying it down in an indefinite way All whatsoever that is holy must there be understood and pearles and holy things are the same one being exegetical of the other holy things excelling other things as far as pearles excel acorns And by doggs and swine both which were unclean in the Law we must understand all that Scripture comprehends under those names they are both put for one 2 Pet. 1.21 and so the result of all is that no person in visible uncleannesse must taste of any thing that is holy From which it followes that as Christ thought it not fit at that present to gratifie a Heathen with a miracle when he said It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto doggs Matth. 15.26 So it will at no time be meet or lawfull to preach the Gospel to any heathen or impenitent and unclean Christian they being no other then dogs or swine and the Gospel the most precious of holy pearles but understanding it as an exhortation to Christian prudence and observing the reason added lest they trample them under feet and turn again and rent you these absurdities and snares will be avoided and the result of all will be onely this that the holy things of God and rich Gospel-pearles are not to be communicated where there is no possible expectation of doing good But all the issue of it will evidently be danger to him that doth impart them and all scorn and contempt of the holy things themselve which was the Apostles way of dealing when the Jewes were filled with envy contradicting and blaspheming Act. 13. and is
farre as I could learn that it did succeed and spread as little as almost any error that ever I knew spring up in the Church Plain Scripture proof of Infants c. pag. 294. so inconsiderable was the party that stood for it And Vorstius speaking in the name of Protestant Divines in general saith b Id potissimum quaeritur an Sacramenta sint signa tantum sigilla foederis gratiae sive externa symbola signacula foederi gratiae appensa divinitus ad hoc institura ut gratiam Dei salutarem in foedere promissam nobis significent atque ita fidem nostram suo modo confirment simul publice testaram reddant quae quidem communis est Evangelicorum sententia an vero preaterea sint causae efficientes hujus salutaris justificantis gratiae sive an sint effectiva gratiae ejusdem organa nempe ad hoc divinitus institura ut gratiam istam realiter instar vasorum in se contineant omnibus illa percipientibus candem vi sua imprimant reipsa conferant quae Bellarmini Pontificiorum omnium opinio est It is disputed whether Sacraments are onely signes and seales of the Covenant of grace or outward signes annext the Covenant and appointed for this of God that they should signify saving grace of God promised in the Covenant and signifying seal and after their manner confirm our faith and give publick testimony of it which saith he is the common opinion of Protestants or whether they be further efficient causes of this saving and justifying grace or whether they be effective instruments of this grace appointed of God for this thing that they should indeed containe it in them and convey it which is the opinion of all Papists Vorstius Anti. Bellar. ad Contro 1 Gen. And our men further judge that opinion of the opus operatum or of the outward Sacramental action as though without the faith and pious motion of those that use it it could justifie any to be evidently false and pernicious And they teach that all Sacraments by the ordination of God himself have onely a power to signifie and seal and not to conferre the grace of the Gospel it self And whereas several passages in the Liturgy of this Church did seem to favour the opposite opinion affixing adoption membership of Christ and inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven and regeneration to Baptisme we know how great offence it gave to many eminently Learned and pious putting them upon omission of those passages And also what Interpretation as with a grain of salt others put upon them that they were onely Sacramentally such And doubtlesse these either hit upon the meaning of the Church which was held to these phrases in imitation of many hyperbolical speeches in the Fathers or else the Church had mist the meaning of Scriptures so loth were the sons of the Church to be quarrelling with their mother and yet more loth with her to run into errors The Observation it self if heeded hath a caution or limit in it Affirming that Sacraments work no otherwise then as signs and seals and that they conferre no inward graces or priviledges further then they work upon the understanding and faith of those that receive them it implyes that they do conferre what an outward symbole or sign is apt to and of powder to convey and that outward priviledges in Sacraments are either conferred of infallibly evidenced This is clear the Apostle having so far undervalued Circumcision in the flesh as to make it Parallell with uncircumcision so that a circumcised Jew and an uncircumcised Gentile differed nothing as to their Spiritual state and condition inferres by way of objection What advantage then hath the Jew and what profit is there of circumcision And answers not that outward circumcision is altogether unprofitable but that it hath much profit and instances in one eminent one To them are committed the Oracles of God This is the inheritance of the Congregation of Jacob Deut. 33.4 as Moses speaks and carrying with it this great priviledge it conveyes with it all other inferiour Church-priviledges right to the Passeover upon this account was theirs Exod. 12.48 and not otherwise So it is with Baptisme men are taken into the Church at this door according to the Commission given to the Apostles Disciple all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Whatsoever they were and whomsoever they professedly served before they are this way taken in as the consecrate servants of the whole Trinity and added to the Church Act 2.47 When they had by the Covenant a precedent title in Baptisme they have a solemn inauguration By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 It is the Spirits work to shape the heart of unbelieving Corinthians to enter into one visible Church-body as that work of Gods power whereby he did perswade Japhet to dwell in the tents of Shem Gen. 9.27 And therefore when c Durandus docet characterem esse ens rationis id est respectum advenientem ex deputatione ad certum officium qualis est relatio in Doctoribus Praetoribus c. Quae sententia vix distinguitur ab haeresi hujus temporis Durand denyed that the Character which the Church of Rome speaks of was any quality in the soul but meerly a relation comming as by way of deputation to an office or duty exemplifying it by the relation that is seen in Doctors Praetors c Bellar. lib. 2. de Sacramen effectu cap. 14. saith That this opinion can scarcely be distinguished from the Heresie of this time d Haeretici non negant neque negare possunt quin sit aliqua relatio rationis in Ministris quae non est in aliis qui non sunt deputati ad ministrandum And further saith That Heretiques do not deny nor can deny but that there is some relation in Ministers which is not in others who are not deputed to the Ministery We do confesse indeed that there is that relation in Christians to Christ by the work done in the Sacrament of Baptisme which is not in Heathens And though we deny Orders to be any Sacrament yet we confesse there is that relation in Ministers to Christ by vertue of their Ordination that is not in those that are not called to the work of the Ministery There are those indeed that do deny it But those that Bellarmine had to deal with and that he charges for Heretiques as Luther Melancthon Calvin Beza Peter Martyr Chemnitius willingly yeeld it And in case this were all the character that they talke of to be imprinted in Baptisme yea in Ordination we should never contend about it And as these priviledges are conferred as to actual interest in the initiatory Sacacraments both of Baptisme and Circumcision so the same priviledges in the following Sacraments are infallibly evidenced as appears in that text 1 Cor. 10.17 The Apostle there making it
them making them to think that this is all that can be said for them Mr. Fuller in his history of holy warre lib 3. cap. 20. quoting out of Reinerius a charge against the Albigenses that they gave no reverence to holy places answers It is true And then gives in this for a reason because most in that age ran riot in adoring of Churches as if some inherent holinesse was ceiled to their roof or plaistered to their walls yea such as might more ingratiate with God the persons and prayers of people there assembled Let men take heed that they raise not Sacraments above the honour that Scripture gives them with like successe as these did places of publick holy assemblies a good cause hath not a greater adversary then a weak argument taken up in the defence of it This argument I confesse had it ground to stand upon might be of force for the battery of Anabaptisme but having no Scripture-bottome it presently falls before any adversary and Anabaptisme gathers strength by the fall of it 3. As to the argument it self tending to evince the uselessenesse of infant-Baptisme it may very fitly be parallelled with that Objection made against Pauls doctrine Rom. 3.1 when he had made it his great businesse to set circumcision on its right bottom and declared that it was not efficacious in the way that they expected and that it was without use for salvation unlesse it were answered with the Circumcision of the heart an objection presently is raised What profit is there then of Circumcision so these likewise when Sacraments are not raised to that height as the Schoolmen have advanced them to be instruments of conveyance of grace by the work done and as they expect from them they presently demand what profit And affirm as to infants at least that they are uselesse 4. That answer which Paul gives to his Questionists that demanded what profit is there of Circumcision I give to those that demand what profit is there of infant-Baptisme Having asserted in general Much every way he answers more punctually instancing in one eminent priviledge that virtually comprized all the external priviledges enjoyned by Israel as Church-members chiefly that to them were committed the Oracles of God It was said before that these priviledges in all Sacraments are either actually conferred or infallibly evidenced In Baptisme a true title is legally conferred Upon account of our baptisme we have an orderly and legall right and title to all succeeding Church-priviledges as the Jewes had done upon account of their Circumcision though there be not alwayes an aptitude for actual admission to them or improvement of them Upon this ground infants have 1. Their share and interest in all the prayers made for the Church collectively even in all that are preferred to God by his people for Zion and Jerusalem This was the duty of every son of Zion Psal 122.6 This was the faithfulls practice Psal 51.18 and in these infants as Church-members had their interest on this account infants were brought to Christ Priviledges following upon infant-baptisme That he might put his hands upon them and pray Matth. 19.13 2. They have their share in the blessings of the Church we see with what solemnity it was to be done Num. 6.22 c. The Lord spake unto Moses saying Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons saying On this wise ye shall blesse the children of Israel saying unto them The Lord blesse thee and keep thee c. and they shall put my Name upon the children of Israel and I will blesse them Infants had their share here and upon this account infants were blessed of Christ Mar. 10.16 3. Their relation to God by virtue of Covenant-interest is hereby evidenced and ratified How transcendent a priviledge this is to have the Lord for our God we see Psal 144.15 having reckoned up several mercies the Psalmist concludes Happy is the people that is in such a case yea happy is that people whose God is the Lord This is the priviledge of every infant that upon Covenant title is baptized God will not suffer their enemies to passe without vengeance As it was an acceptable work to dash the infants of Babylon against the stones Psal 137.9 being a seed growing up against God so it is as displeasing and provoking to harme these that are a seed dedicated unto and growing up for God 4. Baptisme teaches them to know as soon as they are of capacity to learn to whom they belong what Master they are to serve and in what School they are to be trained 5. A necessity is seen to get the knowledge of Christ and timely to walk in his wayes 6. A delight is wrought in them towards those in whose communion they are bred and that own them as theirs whereas being debarred in childhood from this society and denyed this badge it is the way to bring them to maligne them each one is apt to love those of his owne fraternity and on the contrary to study the opposition of others 7. The aggravation of their sin presently rings in their ears by reason of the favour they receive from God the society into which they are incorporated when their conversation doth not in some measure answer their profession 8. Parents here see a strong engagement to bring them up for Christ whom they have thus dedicated to him and put into the fellowship of those who are his Saints and members When they have brought forth children unto God they see their sin heightned in giving them to Moloch or any other besides God and there is no example of any believing parent in all the Scripture bringing up a child for Covenant but in Covenant with the Lord. These alone though more might be added might stop the mouthes of all that insultingly move this question 5. That which in present does not but hereafter may work upon the understanding is not vain and uselesse when it is done That was not vain which Christ did to Peter Joh. 13.17 when he said unto him What I do thou knowest not now but thou shalt know hereafter 6. Seals of purchases taken in infants names are of use to infants though during infancy they know not how to make actual improvement themselves of them If Baptisme hath its actual use in behalf of infants whilest infants as hath been shewed and remains with them to be improved by their understanding and faith when they come to maturity it cannot be thought to be vain and uselesse SECT IV. A Corollary from the former doctrine THen it followes by way of necessary Corollary from that which hath been said Answer to Sacramental engagementsâ— ncessary to salvation that unlesse the soul answer to Sacramental engagements Sacraments are not efficacious for salvation to the receivers This is a clear result from that which hath been said and is fully delivered by the Apostle 1 Pet. 3.21 speaking of the Arke of Noah wherein few that is eight souls were saved by water he
sets himself professedly against this use of Sacraments and will not have them to serve by way of seal for confirmation of our faith in particular And this he endeavours with five several Arguments SECT II. Objections against the former doctrine 1. IF Sacraments confirm our faith by way of seal or after the Object 1 manner of miracles then Sacraments must be better known and more efficacious to perswade to Faith than the Word But nothing can be more efficacious for perswasion than the Word of God and experience tells us that words are better understood than dumb signes and Sacraments compared to the Word are as dumb signes Answ 1. The assumption here should have been Nohting is Answ 1 either more easily known or more eminently efficacious than the Word But the former is left out lest it should give check to their doctrine of obscurity of Scriptures and instead of making the Word easily intelligible he contents himself to say that it is more intelligible than nods or dumb shews when yet dumb signs or such nods are better known and more easily understood as we have experience sufficient than the Word of God or any other word whatsoever in an unknown language 2. If this Argument be of force then nothing else in the Answ 2 world but the bare Word of promise revealed in Scripture is any way serviceable for more full assurance of the thing given in promise Not onely Gideons Ezekiah's and Ahaz his signs but the oath also made to Abraham was superfluous All these had the Word of God and unlesse the signs given them and the oath made to them were more efficacious then the Word which as he sayes nothing is according to him they are all superfluous 3. Comparison is not to be made between the Word and Answ 3 Sacraments whether of those considered apart is more efficacious Then the preheminence is to be given to the Word as Bellarmine sayes Luther acknowledgeth but enquiry is to be made whether the Word together with Sacraments annext to it be not more efficacious by reason of our weaknesse and inclinations to diffidence than the Word without any such visible ratification Nothing can be more firm than the promise of God seeing God cannot lye Tit. 1.2 His Oath is no more valid then his Word yet God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heires of promise the immutability of his counsel confirm'd it by an oath That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye we might have strong consolation Object 2 2. The nature of Sacraments cannot any where be better understood than from his words that is the authour of them But in the Holy Scriptures they are no where called seales of Promises but instruments of Justification Ergo. Answ 1 Answ 1. If this Proposition stand then some at least of the Sacraments of Rome and most of their Sacramentals must fall seeing by Thomas Aquinas his acknowledgment they are not to be found in Scriptures Answ 2 2. There is nothing more false then this assumption as abundantly hath been declared and the Text in hand is a sufficient witnesse Object 3 3. If Sacraments be onely seales of the promise of grace then either they are superfluous or else of very slender use and benefit for we have more Testimonies far more efficacious Good works are better signes and testimonies of righteousnesse obtained then washing with water or taking of the Eucharist which may be received Hypocritically Answ 1 Answ 1. If this Argument be of any force then wheresoever there is one witnesse to speak in any cause all the other are vain and superfluous and so that of the Apostle will fall to the ground At the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established Answ 2 2. It is well that works are made a witnesse of assurance then this way at least assurance may be had which he and his party are wont to deny Answ 3 3. Works are not Testimonies instituted of God for this end as Amesius observes but of their own nature they evidence our fitnesse for glory and as fruits of our faith as Whitaker speaks And those which Bellarmine uses to make the best of works Almes Fasting and Prayer may be hypocritically performed likewise Answ 4 4. This witnesse or seal of Sacraments is not a distinct witnesse or seal from that which the Jesuit here produces but stands in co-ordination with it or rather in subordination to it It is upon the answer of a good conscience not otherwise that Sacraments give this witnesse 4. If Sacraments seal by way of particular application for support Object 4 Faith then it is in vain to baptize Infants But Lutherans are wholly for Infant-baptisme Ans 1. We may learn of Bellarmine that Protestants at least Answ 1 think that this doctrine and Infant-baptisme will well stand together 2. The Apostle was certainly able to have given a satisfying Answ 2 answer to this Objection seeing he tells us that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith and yet himself was circumcised the eighth day Phil. 3.5 It is of equal strength against Infant-circumcision as against baptisme 5. If Sacraments be seales of grace which in particular is conferred Object 5 upon any then oftentimes they are false viz. when the Sacrament is given to a man who pretends to believe and indeed doth not believe and so it were unlawful to baptize any lest we should cause God to give witnesse to a lye for we certainly know of none whether they believe truly or onely pretend it Ans Our Adversary here prevents us Answ and puts an answer into our mouthes Perhaps saith he they will say That the Sacrament is a seal or testimony of grace not absolutely but if he that doth receive the Sacrament do believe the promise And this indeed is their Answer as out of Amesius Whitaker Vorstius Pareus Dr. Reynolds Mr. Rutherford I have shewn to which may be added that full Testimony out of Dr. Slater before mentioned As for those that will have the Covenant to be absolute and the seales to be put without any respect had to any condition against the full stream of Protestant Writers I shall desire them to help us to any other satisfying answer to this Argument I must confesse that in case I be once convinced that the work of Sacraments is to ratifie Gods promise in an absolute way as the Rainbowe do's that God will no more destroy the World by water without respect had to any condition at all And that a seal is put to a blank in case any unregenerate person be baptized or admitted to the Lords Table I must either be holpen with further light than I can yet see or else I think I shall never more adventure upon Baptisme or the Lords Supper And Bellarmine supposing that this will be our answer can bring nothing more to avoid 〈◊〉 then two speeches of Luther and one of Melancton nothing at all to
or proper passive reception that it is therefore called receiving it self and it is therefore as I think called so because it is so and that it hath its concurrence and way of efficacy for possession I think few except Mr. Baxter will deny It followes Yet still I say if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase especially if some men had the same ingenuity that others have that say it is but Instrumentum Metaphoricum There is not I hope so much ingenuity desired as to smother or blind their reason If it be a metaphorical instrument there must be some real analogy between it and an instrument properly so called in doing that which is done by an instrument and when an instrument is as is affirmed an efficient An instrument without any efficiency at all is a strange kind of Metaphor It had been better to have held to the old dialect of Equivocal There followes But to say saith he that the act of Faith is the instrument of Ethical active reception which is that which I argued against is to say receiving Christ is the instrument of it self It will sure rather follow that Faith is the instrument of the soul in receiving Christ We say faith receives as we say the hand takes Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ That faith is the eye and hand of the soul are Scripture Metaphors or the sword kills but we mean the man receives by the hand and the hand kills by the sword and so we mean the soul receives Christ by faith I explained my self in giving instance in mens usual language concerning faith which is rejected with no little disdain affirming that these speeches Faith is the eye of the soul the hand of the soul are Metaphors of meere humane use forgetting it seems that ever the Scripture said that Moses by faith endured as seeing him that is invisible or that the promise of the Spirit is received by faith If I had added that faith is the foot of the soul they had all been Metaphors of Divine use I urge Scripture texts We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 26.18 To which is replyed If by signifie an instrumental cause it is either alwayes or sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is alwayes if but sometimes why do you take it for granted that so it signifies here This I might well retort If it signifie and an instumental cause sometimes why is it not made appear that it does not so signifie here But I confesse that by hath not alwayes such signification Bartimeus sate by the high-way-side begging in which place by is no instrument but when the particle by hath reference to that which hath immediate reference to a principal cause and sometimes is put to the principal cause it self I suppose nothing else but an instrument can be intended when Christ is said to be set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 and that we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 I know not how the blood of Christ can be a principal cause and faith not denote an instrument I said why else is this righteousnesse sometimes called the righteousnesse of faith sometimes the righteousnesse of God by faith but that it is a righteousnesse which faith receives To this is replyed It is properer to say Credens recipit credendo the believer by believing receives it then to say faith especially the act receives it Here is an egregious subtilety It is more proper to say I receieve a gift by my hand then to say my hand receives it of the same stamp with another where it is said that Scripture sayes That we are justified by faith yet denyed that Scripture sayes that faith justifies But be it so that is properer does not Scripture speak as improperly Eye hath not seen Eare hath not heard It had been as much properer to have said No man hath seen with his eye or heard with his ear I quote Ephes 3.17 Christ dwells in us by faith and Gal. 3.14 We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith There I say Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus and to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus and I am answered You odly change the question we are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving a right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively and so we have a large discourse of Christs dwelling in us But is it not to the purpose to shew that the phrase by faith notes instrumentality which these texts make good and does not Christ dwell in us to more purposes then one Is it not to all purposes that by faith we receive him And then our receiving right to him is not here excluded I said the instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denyed because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwayes rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in moral actions To this is replyed I said 1. The action of the principal cause and of the instrument is but one action is not this true of moral operation as well as Physical To this I answer I think here some demurre might be put and scarce believe that it will be fully made good that the action of the principal agent and the instruments which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are alwayes exactly one though the act of the instrument may be in such cases Interpretatively called the act of the principal agent as David is said to have slain Vriah with the sword of the Ammonites Saul I am sure was of an other mind when intending the death of David he said Let not my hand be upon him but the hand of the Philistines 1 Sam. 18.17 But in case it be granted what hath he gained He adds 2. I say the instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo geneâ—e Demanding Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical Then yeelding that it is true Moral causes may be said to have a lesse proper causation then Physical c. And this lesse proper causation I doubt not but may be found in faith and as proper a causation as an instrument of this nature will bear I say The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvel then in case men mind to contend about it that some question is raised about the instrument c. To this there is much spoke telling me what he would have me to have concluded
so understood of a real change as wholly to exclude that which is relative It is meant of that whatsoever which tends to the soules profit It is spoken of profit in order to eternal rest If Justification be for our profit or tend at all to our everlasting rest then justification is not here excluded It followes The Scripture meaneth The Word had not further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie If I take this to be the meaning I must interpret it That the Word did not justifie them for it doth justifie where it is mixt with faith though I should not exclude other offices done by the Word It followes 2. It 's true that the Word did not justifie them but that is consequential onely of the former unprofitablenesse I might as well say that the Word 's not sanctifying is consequential as he may say the Word 's not justifying is onely thus consequential I see no shew of reason that the Text should be meant immediately of sanctification and consequentially onely of Justification and if it be consequentially onely proved that the Word did not justifie Them here is a reall and more then a shew of advantage to my cause I hope he is not the man that will dispute against proofs by consequence when the consequence by himself is granted It followes Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his mind or actions and then you do something When I go about the proof of it I think I shall have Mr. Baxter my sole and single adversary in it he is not pleased to give us in any difference And he ownes that which is usually quoted out of Austin He that made thee without thee will not save thee without thee and hath not justification as great an influx into salvation as sanctification I desire him onely to reflect upon that which he hath said in the Preface of his confession a book newly come to my hands Antecedently to believing all have an equal conditional gift of pardon and none have an absolute nor an actual right The Gospel findeth us equal and makes no inequality till we make it our selves But the secret unsearchable workings of Divine grace do begin the difference and make it in us before it be made by us Who ever went higher in speaking of mans work in his sanctification and higher it is then ever I spake of a mans pardoning himself It is said It is weak arguing to say the Word profiteth not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveyes to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying you cannot but know the sequel would be denyed Others would think that there is strength in such arguing that it receives efficacy from faith upon that account that it profits where faith is and is unprofitable where faith is not especially when they find efficacy ascribed to faith both in justification and sanctification It followes In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the Word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other And are not the Word and faith concauses in Justification as in progressive sanctification tell us whether you will exclude I dare exclude neither faith nor Gospel as instrumental workers But it followes not as is said that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this for concauses have not influence on each other but on the effect I scarce think that maxime to be of universal truth but be it a truth I say no more then here is asserted for me Justification is the effect and the Word and faith are concauses It yet followes The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work on the soul which presupposeth faith and that 's all that the Text saith If any sense can be made of this arguing so far as I understand it then Justification presupposeth not faith which is not Mr. Baxters judgment It followes May not the absence of faith hinder unlesse when present it doth effect And would the Apostle think we have spoke of effectual faith or the efficacy of faith yea would Dr. Preston have wrote a Tract of effectual faith if it had been idle in the soul and without all efficacy And to restrain the efficacy of it to sanctification excluding Justification never came that I know into the thoughts of any Orthodox Writer that hath treated of Justification neither would the Pen-men of Scriptures have expressed themselves in that way as to say we are justified by faith had faith been there and onely had sate idle The various applications of that Text Hab. 2.4 The just shall live by his faith may teach us not to pen up faith in such narrow bounds as to restrain the work of it to efficacy in one kind onely The Apostle to the Hebrewes plainly applyes it to support by faith in sufferings Heb. 10.38 and Gal. 3.11 to justification by faith and shall we say that in the one it is working and in the other it doth nothing If we do we shall have Paul our adversary who sayes that Christ is set forth a propitiation by faith what followes hath been already spoken to The second Text saith he I know not how you mean to make use of unlesse you argue thus The Word worketh effectually onely in believers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you saith he that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of justification He had a good mind to speak to the antecedent but if he can for disproof of that make any efficacious working of the Word appear in Infidels such as Scripture useth to honour with such titles I shall oppose him to maintain the Justification of Infidels The sequel in the word convey is his own and to that which followes I have already sufficiently spoken I inferred from the former words that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much lesse say that the Word hath such This in very big terms is denyed and the opposite boldly asserted The Gospel saith he in it self considered without the co-ordinate or subordinate or superior causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it When I stand thus highly charged to deny that which no Preacher of the Gospel should question by reason of the clear evidence of it every man may justly expect full clear and evident Scriptures and reasons beyond all doubt for my conviction but I hear of neither but instead
of it first a piece of a Concession Secondly a Simile The Concession is That the Gospel without the concomitance of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non That faith should barely wait effecting nothing and gain no further honour then here is assigned will appear a strange assertion If it had its efficacy where it was in being in miraculous cures so that it was said Thy faith hath made thee whole I think it is much rather efficacious in justification there being so much spoken of justification by faith I desire Mr. Baxter to consider the words of his learned dying friend Mr. Gataker in his letter to him And surely faith as a medium seems to have a more peculiar office in the transaction of that main businesse of Justification then either repentance or any other grace as the love or fear of God and the like Which to me seems the more apparent because I find it so oft said in the Word that men are justified by faith but no where by repentance Albeit that also be as a condition thereunto required as also that form of speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fides or fiducia in sanguine seems to intimate and imply that this grace hath a more special reference then any other to the satisfaction made to Gods Justice for our sins by Christs sufferings which alone we can plead for our discharge of them at Gods Tribunal Much more followes worthy of Mr. Baxters consideration in laying so high a charge as he hath done on our Reformers in this particular There followes a Simile as full of obscurity as the earth is of darknesse and it were aesie so far as it is intelligible to make it appear how much it halteth but that I will not trouble the Reader with such impertinencies and I look for proofs rather then Similes and here is no proof at all I further infer in my Treatise Mr. Pemble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit presently addes Now instruments are either cooperative or passive and the Word must be one of these two Cooperative he saith it is not and gives his reason It is therefore saith he a passive instrument working onely per modum objecti as it containes a declaration of the Divine will and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known believed and practised Here many exceptions are taken Whether the Word be a passive instrument or cooperative with the Spirit First That Mr. Pemble speakes of the Word as the instrument of sanctification we speak of it as conveying right to Christ and as justifying Secondly That Mr. Pembles reason of the passive instrumentality of the Word is but this that it cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will Thirdly That himself will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration though not punctually how it operates Fourthly That this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture which makes the Word to be mighty powerful pulling down strong-holds c. Fifthly That Mr. Pemble herein is single and singular To speak to these in order To the first I say Though Mr. Pemble gives an instance of the Words work in sanctification yet there is no reason to believe that he limits his whole discourse to it indefinitely affirming that it is a passive instrument and giving instance in one there is no imaginable reason that he can exclude the other For his second He lets his Reader know that he took an hasty view of Mr. Pemble when he said that this was all his reason he may see the thing fully argued by him mihi pag. 97 98 99 c in quarto which is too long to transcribe The work which is done upon the soul is wrought by the Spirit as the principal agent whether it be to regeneration progressive sanctification or in order to justification every previous work in tendency towards these is from the Spirit likewise as illumination conviction the beginning and whole progresse is by the Spirit The Word is no more then an instrument and all that the Word doth is by power from the Spirit and therefore said to be mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.5 Now the Spirit must work by way of power either on the Word or the soul as its object It must infuse power and strength into the one as the principal agent in the work Mr. Pemble denies that it works thus by an infusion of power into the Word and affirmes that the infusion of strength is into the soul and not into the Word which the Apostle confirmes Ephes 3.16 As for his third which he saies he will undertake to declare he brings nothing but bare authorities He faith he hath read many that say one thing and some that say another but himself is of Scotus his mind and we have not one syllable to induce any other to be of the same judgement His fourth Mr. Pemble answers and saith That all those phrases there reckoned up are to be understood by a metonymy which though they properly belong to the invisible power of the Holy Ghost giving effect unto his own Word yet are figuratively attributed unto the Word it self which he useth as his visible instrument explaining himself by several similitudes For his last If Mr. Pemble be thus sole and singular he was much mistaken Having fully spoke his judgement in this thing he addes pag. 99. And this is the sentence of the Orthodox Church touching the nature and distinction of these two callings Inward by the work of the Spirit outward by the voice of the Word The Arminians are of another opinion whose judgement saith he about this matter is thus c. At large laying down their doctrine And it were easy to multiply those testimonies that take all efficacy or energy from the Word to give it to the Spirit usually quoting 1 Cor. 3.6 7. 2 Cor. 3.6 2 Cor. 10.4 5. He tells me I doubt whether you believe him or your self throughly for if you did I think you would preach but coldly I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively And does he think Mr. Pemble did believe his own doctrine or was he a cold Preacher he delivers his doctrine with confidence and backes it with reasons and the workes that he hath left behind argue that he spake with some heat and fervour and I wish that I could gain more heat both in prayer and preaching and I do look that my preaching should operate actively but whether of it self or through the power of the Spirit there lyes the question He concludes If it were proved that there were an hundred passive instruments it would never be proved that faith is one as an instrument doth signifie an efficient cause of Gods work of justifying us neither really nor reputatively is
teach the world that the onely justifying act of faith is the accepting of justification as merited by Christs blood or the accepting of Christs righteousnes to justifie them it is not hard for an unprejudic'd man to discern For my part in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have triall of I can find no commoner cause of their generall delusion and perdition then this very doctrine Answ To this I might have many things to say 1. It is the hard fate Desperate Conclusions inferr'd from right principles if I may say so of Christian Religion to have inferences of this kind drawn from her principles And yet the way of Christians hath not been either to desert the principles from which they are drawn nor yet to own or defend the inferences or conclusions that are drawn from them The Apostle affirming that the exaltation of Gods glory in not utterly casting of the Nation of the Jewes was eminently seen in their disloyalty and covenant-breaking with him Inference is presently made that covenant-breaking and disloyalty cannot then be blamed If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie to his glory why yet am I also judged as a sinner That which advanceth Gods glory cannot be charged as a sin Bat covenant-breaking with God according to the Apostle addes to his glory and therefore it cannot be charged as a sin If answer be made that this exaltation of God in his glory is by accident and no thanks to him that breaks covenant but to the goodness of God that brings good out of evill From this inference is made also Let us then do evill that good may come which Conclusion was slanderously charged upon the Apostle Rom. 3. vers 8. The doctrine of Gods free election of some and passing by of others occasioned two dâ—sperate inferences 1. That there is then unrighteousness with God as deserting yea hating his creature without cause Rom. 9.14 2. That God then without reason finds a fault with his creature this being his will who can resist it Ro. 9.19 The wits of some have been indeed busied to put such a comment upon the Apostles words that no such inference as these with any colour or shew of reason can be drawn and thereby make it appear that their comment is utterly dissonant from the Text for from the Apostles doctrine these inferences in the judgement of blinded reason and rules held between creature and creature seem directly to follow as evidently appears in the Apostles answer To come nearer to the business in hand the Apostle making it his work to advance Gods free grace in mans justification some feared lest their sin was above the grace of a pardon To satisfie these the Apostle tels them that where sin abounded grace doth super-abound Rom. 5.20 So that the greatness of their sin exalts the free grace and favour of God an inference is presently ready Let us then continue in sin that grace may abound Rom. 6.1 And here indeed was as fair and full encouragement to sin as any that you hold out in your objection against this doctrine this very use which you say is now made by wicked ones of this Doctrine generally taught by Protestants was made as is said in the Apostles times by the Gnosticks and others who maintained that it was enough to believe that Christ died for sin though a man liv'd in all wickedness and ungodliness How could this so soon spring in the Church but that carnal ones found some-what that would bear some colour on which they might bottom it as omne mendacium fundatur in aliquâ veritate as may be seen verified in the instances mentioned Let not Christian doctrin then be blamed upon the account of such desperate deductions and cursedly wrested inferences As soon as reformation began and this doctrine among others appeared it is well known what from the adversaries it suffered As it was laid to the Reformers charge that they made God the author of sin so that Gibieuf with his black mouth makes Calvin worse then the Manichees so also that they utterly laid aside all care and regard of good works or wayes of godliness and that upon account of their doctrine that faith alone justifies It is well known with what a belly they use to picture Luther as if his work had been alone to drink And Bellarmine taking upon him in the preface to his fourth Tome out of the Revelation to set out what a creature a Lutheran is saith that those that are addicted to their belly for the most part fall to them And their orator Turner in his elogie of Drunkenness applauds the Lutherans with a bene secistis in that they have lest the Catholique Church to betake themselves to that party How full their invectives were against Calvin and Beza and all of their opinion as enemies of all godliness and friends of prophanesse almost all books of popish writers may witnesse Those things are famous that Bellarmine out of Bolsecke and Colcheus quotes to this purpose Granatensis in his dedicatory Epistle before his Dux peccatorum having laid this down as a maxime that Holinesse and purity of doctrine is a certain mark and note of true faith and Religion and asserted that there hath been no sect from the beginning of the world if we run through all ages to be compared with Christians for doctrine of concernment to mans Moral conversation he enters comparison first with Heathenism then with Turcisme then with Judaisme after Christs comming and lastly takes notice of the lives of Hereticks in the primitive times of the Manichees out of Austin Of the Gnosticks out of Epiphanius Of the Carpocratians out of Austin then he fals upon his own times and saies The Heretiques of our own times are no more holy They that have fetch'd back the errors of faith of former Heretiques from hell are also diligent followers of their practices what holiness of life saith he is to be expected from the Lutherans that with their speciall faith have set open a door to all impiety and the wicked practices of the Calvinists are better known saith he then we desire and thereupon tels us two tales first that some that neighbour upon Geneva being demanded why they did not reject the Catholique and receive Genevas Gospel answerd That was not to be wondered at for said they the words and books of Calvinists stuff'd with lies and fraud are carried further then the narrative of their wickedness But to us say they that go every week to their Market it is well known to be a kingdome of hellish confusion and therefore their Gospell doth not take with us His next is of a certain Minister of theirs who a few years before went into Hungary petitioned a Bashaw of the Turks for liberty to preach their Gospel to the Christians that lived among the Turks under tribute and to perswade the said Bashaw to grant his Petition he began with many reasons
speaking of agenda and not credenda and that here should be any rule de agendis but the precept determining of duty or that the promise There is a righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law or any act that goes along with the promise which what it means I cannot imagine should be any rule of our actions I never heard but from your mouth And for your inference That all our Actions and Habits comming short of the precept determining of duty no man therefore hath a righteousness consisting in this conformity I should think all but your self would take to be a Non sequitur There is a righteousness in conformity to the precept which yet fals short of a full and perfect conformity Look I pray you upon Zacharie and Elizabeth that have this praise in the Gospel that they were both righteous before God and by what rule this righteousness had its denomination let the Text be consulted If walking in all the ordinances and commandements of God blameless give men the denomination of righteousness then there is a righteousness in conformity to the precept But walking in all the commandments and ordinances of God denominates men righteous Ergo doing righteousness denominates righteous He that doth righteousness is righteous 1 John 4.7 And what should be the rule of doing but the precept I cannot imagine If we break the precept when we sin the precept is our rule but we break the precept when we sin 1 John 5.4 Abel hath often that Testimony to be righteous and that because his works were righteous 1 John 3.12 And so Lot in like manner 2 Pet. 2.8 there is a righteousness then in conformity to the Law of works though not to the covenant of works Zachary saies We are redeemed to serve without fear in holiness and righteousness before God B. concedimus renatos diligere deum proximum sed imperfectè diligere per consequens imperfectè legem implere Luk. 1.74 75. And this righteousness is not without its rule and hath no other rule then that which Zacharies righteousness had in the sixth verse of the same Chapter There is an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and so an imperfect righteousness in conformity to it b We grant saith Davenant that the regenerate love God and their neighbour but they love imperfectly and by consequence they fulfil the Law imperfectly de Justit actuali p. 551. And if you acknowledge an imperfection in Pauls frame as you say you do you then acknowledge an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and an imperfect conformity to the Law It is in reference to the Law that he had his imperfections and gradual inconformity He delights he saies in the Law in the inward man but sees an opposite power drawing him aside and he quotes the precept and not the promise annex'd Thou shalt not covet to which in such imperfection he conformed I added in my Treatise Whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers that commonly understand the word Righteousness and Righteous as it refers to the old Rule I profess my self to have little of their learning but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Here you first complain of want of candor in me in not repeating all that you spoke and if is but this once that I know that I am thus charged And the sense I think is full in those words that I do set down Secondly you go about to clear your self from some aspersions concerning harsh speeches used by you against learned Divines in which you say you speak not to me but to others standing thus charged by them and not by me In which I am well content that you should stand as right in your Readers eyes as you can desire and shall forbear to rake further into that ulcer Thirdly you take me to task and are content to put my name at length As for Mr. Blake's profession that he hath little of their learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not to have describ'd him But yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but he speaks as he thinks Good Sir say it over again that it may be known from an hand of your eminence that I say my learning is little and that I speak it not more modestly then truly neither do you know how much I suffer that it is no more Yet least the cause in which I appear should suffer with me or rather in me let me assume so much boldnesse as to tell you that I yet think that that little which through grace I have obtained may serve to satisfie those arguments which this piece of yours holds forth against me I have been often confounded with your multitude but never perceived my self shatter'd by your strength not that my learning is equall with yours I know my self better then to enter such comparisons but your cause is unequall to mine Your advantage is not so great against me in the greatnesse of your abilities as mine against you in the goodnesse of the cause It would often go ill with a good cause if the most able Advocates should not sometimes be worsted in the presence of impartiall Judges Should you and I make exchange So that I were to appear in the cause that you maintain and you in that which I defend a weaker then you would easily do that which I think you have not yet done But your willingnesse is observable to take a hint from my mouth to strip me of all the learning of these learned men charged with intolerable ignorance and leave their ignorance only with me as the whole you are willing to allow me Yet in the next place you engage me to you in your endeavours to help me out of my ignorance in this Let me be hold to shew him say you part of that which he sayth he is wholly ignorant of That our personall inherent Righteousnesse is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our Sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works But I were ignorant indeed if you could surprize me with your confounding of these terms Law and Covenant Those two I take much to differ In your Aphorisms where you think you speak most full and here complain that I omitted somewhat of that which you there said you have the word Law and the word Rule But I hear not of the word Covenant at all But here Law and Covenant are confounded as though every Law were a Covenant and every Covenant a Law And I were yet more in ignorance if I should let your Syllogisms pass
it such To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active and that is the work of God and a justification passive of which man is the subject as I read of a double miraculous faith one active to work a cure the other passive to be cured Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed Acts 14.9 Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith not that it acted not at all which is contradicted by Christ in saying Thy faith hath made thee whole but that it served for a passive work on the diseased so I think this faith which tends to our justification is not meerly passive though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination When I receive a gift that enriches I act Yet he that gives onely does enrich and I that receive am enriched so it is in justification we do not justifie but are justified and yet act in receiving Christ for justification as sick ones in Christs tyme did not heal but were healed yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification I confesse I did somewhat needlessely runne upon this discourse of passive instruments upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any such thing as a passive instrument never intending to make faith meerly passive which was never my opinion neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers yet I would have those that are confidently opposite to weigh the streng◠〈◊〉 his reasons and find out if they can a more moderate middle◠〈◊〉 to ascribe somewhat more to the Word without injury do◠〈◊〉 the working of Gods Spirit I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit I take to be the greater which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry further to determine I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I mentioned that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckermans incus c. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument but onely to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint that these words do import an intimation as he expresses it that I said all these were active instruments And as the words stand in my Book it is hard to say what they import It should have been expressed and Keckermans incus c. and his scamnum and mensa accubitus and terra ambulationis no instruments which words I know not by what meanes were left out yet the Reader may see that they were intended seeing they are opposed to the other which are made active instruments But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others that I may well spare my paines neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them seeing though I doubt not but there are thousands of such kind of instruments I put not faith into that number as I know many godly learned do But it is easie to bear a dissent in a word of art when the thing in question is agreed upon As to the rest which followes in this tract against me in this thing there is very little but what hath been spoken to and this paper already growing more big then is meet for an interposition in this kind in a positive Treatise though not impertinent to the subject in hand I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies onely I must take notice of two passages one where I am charged with ignorance the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit In the first there are several particulars 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped that I had understood better I suspect saith he by your words when you say the Word is produced and held forth of God and by your discourse all along that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self So 〈◊〉 it is taken for granted that he cannot be mistaken when 〈◊〉 â—ruth is known Mr. Baxters writings and truth are one and 〈◊〉 same 2. My error is detected and I am sent where I may understand my self better You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul as the Papists say and our Divines say it sanctifies or as it doth justifie in foro Conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort but Sir saith he I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris pag. 173 174 c. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point But I marvel that it should be expected that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer and in the close of all when he hath spoke his full mind he addes pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission and justification adding Si quid novisti rectigus c. But now he peremptorily sayes I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart but as it is lex promulgata foedus testamentum and so doth convey right or constitute the duenesse of the benefit 1 Joh. 5.11 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhtings in this manner to take the chair 1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant which is the transient act in which justification is conferred on every believer find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it If so then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant if not whether he presupposeth that men upon the Lawes promulgation will believe of themselves without any further work or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith If these be answered in the negative that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation nor there is any other like instrument for this work then I think it must follow that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification Namely By working men out of unbelief into faith I had thought that when Paul and Appollos are Ministers by whom men believe that they had by the means of this encted or promulgated Covenant brought men to this posture And though justification be a relative change and not a real as is truly affirmed yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work Whereas