mean by leaving himself at liberty This you say is these Mens free Grace while they deny the Gospel Rule or Law These Taunts and Falshoods are well enough it seems in your Mouth its suitable to the rest of the Prittle Prattle in this Preface 8. You say the Question is not Whether God hath not as to us absolutely promised and covenanted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and all Men believing be pardoned and so persevere in Faith and Holiness to eternal Life which I affirm Pref. p. 5. R. Here then you allow that there is an absolute Covenant of Grace for whatever distinction you would make between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace there 's no Man of sense can deny that the Covenant of Redemption is a Covenant of Grace and if God hath absolutely promised to and covenanted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and be pardoned this must stand absolute to the end of the World But by your favour tho' I am for the absoluteness of the Covenant of Grace yet it was not absolute but conditional to Christ that Faith and Pardon and Perseverance as promised to Christ for the Elect were conditional and the condition was that he should make himself an Offering for Sin bear it and make full satisfaction to the Law by his Righteousness Active and Passive and make Intercession for Transgressors and therefore tho' you affirm here yet I deny But the Question is you say whether there is a Covenant which requires our true believing consent to the Terms of it to the condition of Pardon and Glory and supposeth this true consent in the actual bestowing these Benefits This Mr. C denies and I affirm Res 1. I deny that there is any more Covenants of Grace than one and say That the Covenant between the Father and the Son was that original Contract which was displayed and made manifest in the Gospel of the old and new Testament and in whatever is required in this Display is absolutely promised For if there be two Covenants wherein the same things are promised and to the same Persons the first absolute and the second conditional the one must certainly be vacated by the other For if I promise to a Person or to another for him to give him a House freely and afterward make a covenant Bargain with him that he must pay me 20 l. or 20 s. per annum the first Covenant is vacated or if I am bound to stand to my first Promise the second Agreement falls to the Ground 2. Likewise observe what you affirm That God hath made Terms as a Condition i. e federal of Pardon and Glory So that here is brought in a Covenant of Works to intervene betwixt the absolute Covenant and bestowing the Benefits absolutely at first promised Now Men may see plainly what you mean when you talk so much of Pardon for and by Jesus Christ this Pardon is one of the Benefits bestowed in your new Law judicially by way of remuneration to the performance of the Terms of Duty required 9. It is not whether Faith be the only Grace by which we receive and rest on Christ for Justification and that it is Christ received by Faith doth justifie which is the sense of the Protestants when they say we are justified by Faith alone this I affirm R. Yes you do in your sense i. e. That Christ justifies here as much as is needful as to legal Righteousness but there is another Righteousness viz. Evangelical that puts in for a snack viz. that of the new Law And you do much misrepresent the Protestants for they say Christ's Righteousness is all our Righteousness of one kind and another that we are justified by a Righteousness without us and not by any within us any Act or qualification whatever But the Papists say with you the Council of Trent doth anathematize Those that say a Man is justified without the Merit of Christ by which Christ did merit for us or is formally just by that Anath 10. And they curse also any one that saith that he is justified only by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ or only by Remission of Sins without inherent Grace Anath 11. But let 's have the Query then It is you say Whether he that can truly believe to Justification must be in part a convinced penitent humbled Sinner and this you affirm and say I deny R. You should have told the Place and my Words It s possible I may deny it in your sense and I will prove how that you must deny it in my sense i. e. that legal Convictions and Humiliations are no federal conditions of Faith for you say That the first Grace is absolutely given and if so there 's no federal conditions of it Why do you not bring in hearing the Word as a federal condition of Faith for it comes by Hearing Why do you not bring in a Mans having his Senses and Understanding and many more things And now you talk of Humblings let me mind you what you say Page 15. You tell us of the Sum of the Popish Principles our Divines oppose 1. They think that by Attrition or a selfish legal fear of Punishment Men do ex congruo or meetness merit Charity and Faith which be the beginning of Sanctification and that this begun Sanctification is all our first Justification 1. What do you say less than they setting aside the word Merit and they say as to that de congruo its scarcely so Nay some are against Meritum de congruo as being any Merit but only a disposition and meetness of the Subject such as you would have and we may put their Attrition to your Humblings as a meetness for Faith See what the Council of Trent saith Can. 8. When Paul saith a Man is justified by Faith and gratis it is to be understood because Faith is the beginning and the things that precede Justification are not meritorious of Grace See now how you abuse the Papists Nay I 'l tell you more for I would give the Devil his due you abuse the Papists in charging them for making this begun Sanctification all their Justification The words of the 7th Canon of the Council of Trent are That Justification followeth Preparation which is not only remission of Sins but Sanctification And therefore they make not only Sanctification begun to be our first Justification And in the 10th Anathema they curse them that say A Man is justified without the Righteousness by which Christ did merit for us Now I think you ought to ask the Papists forgiveness for slandering of them Rhemists on Rom. 2.3 they grant That the beginning of our Justification which they call the first is meerly of Grace neither can we do acceptable Works before we be justified but in the second Justification which is the encrease of former Justice a Man may merit by good Works So again they say Works done of Nature before or without Faith can't merit
but Works done by God's Grace may and are joyned with it as Causes of Salvation and in these Points the Protestants oppose them I could fill a Volume with it if need were but it s enough to say you are mistaken in telling us what the Protestants oppose them in You say also that I say That Pardon is rather the condition of Faith nay Pardon is the cause of Faith R. I say rather for if a federal condition must lye between giving and receiving giving is the causal condition of receiving and not receiving of giving 2. The Object must be before the Act of the Organ Pardon is the Object applyed by Faith Application before there is an Object is contradictio in adjecto 3. The Promise of Pardon is the Ground and Reason of our believing therein is the Grace brought therein doth the Truth and faithfulness of God appear and the Apostle saith Faith comes by hearing this Word of Promise i. e. is wrought by it Rom. 10. And he opposeth the Works of the Law and the hearing of Faith in Justification Gal. 3.2 5. And what is that acceptation but of Faith which the Apostle speaks of 1 Tim. 1.15 And what doth it accept but that faithful Gospel saying there mentioned That Christ came into the World to save Sinners and the chiefest It s the Grace of God working in this Promise that hath wrought Faith in the hearts of thousands 4. We say with all soundest Protestants That Justification in Nature is before Sanctification and the Cause of it and therefore of Faith because Faith as a Grace wrought is a part of Sanctification It s enough for you to hold up that you call Error and give it Name and so let it go 10. It is not whether Sanctification taken strictly do follow Justification this I affirm R. If you affirm this you should not make so strange of my saying Pardon is the condition of believing What you hide under strictly I concern not my self Sanctification is Sanctification and if Justification goes before it you allow it to be conditio ordinis at least Therefore I conclude Pardon is rather a condition yea I say not meerly of Order but such a condition as is an influential Cause But go on stating your difference But whether effectual Vocation make a real habitual change in the Soul and that this Vocation is in order of Nature before Justification This Mr. C. and the Letter and I affirm with the Assembly R. As to the Letter I must tell your Answer to it is short and ungenteel and as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine thou lyest when you say it was rather to serve a turn than to argue it spake Truth weakly and other things erroneously and ignorantly c. It justifies a necessity of dealing a little more roughly with Men of your Country and Kidney But to our Point in hand it need not be enquired whether you take effectual Vocation in the active or passive Sense seeing you say its such as makes a real habitual change in the Soul And seeing it makes such a change it must be a change of Sanctification and this you say is before Justification how can that be when you had said before that Justification is before Sanctification strictly taken What kind of Sanctification I pray is effectual Calling Is it not so in a strict sense when you say its a real habitual change in the Soul Is this not turning from Darkness to Light raising us together with Christ or being born again But all this must be done before the Relative change a Man must be free from the reigning Power of Sin and alive from the Dead without Jesus Christ our Lord. See what the Assembly saith in the larger Catech. Q. 67. That effectual calling is the Work of Gods Almighty Power and Grace whereby out of his free and especial Love to his Elect and from nothing in them moving him thereto he doth in his accepted time invite and draw them to Jesus Christ c. and they are hereby made able and willing freely to answer his Call and to accept and embrace the Grace offered and conveyed therein i. e. then they are effectually called when they have embraced the pardoning Grace of God offered and conveyed which shews the previousness of that Grace working the effectual Calling consummated in believing and embracing the Gospel offered the Gospel Grace in the Promise is always that which works first upon the Sinner moves his Heart and draws it forth in believing 11. It is not whether our sincere Faith and Love c. are imperfect and so can be no meriting Righteousness which I affirm R. You affirm they are imperfect and so do I but not therefore that they can be no meriting Righteousness for the Merit of Righteousness doth not depend upon the perfection of the Duty or Service in it self but its perfection in relation to the Law that requireth it if the Duty required be never so weak little and lame if I have such a degree as the Law requires its perfect as to that Law The Law requires a poor Man to pay a Shilling to a Tax it s as good obedience as another Mans that's required to pay twenty Many Instances might be given the Papists say Merit lies not in the value of the Action but in Gods Acceptation The Council of Trent saith Our Works are meritorious of eternal Life Quia a patre acceptantur per Christum yea saith S. de Clara Actus meus dicitur meritorium quia elicitus seu Imperatus a gratia ex pactione divina acceptatur ad premium Deus ab aeterno ordinavit hujusmodi actus esse dignos vita eterna quando eliciuntur a gratia habituali non igitur tota ratio meriti a gratia ipsa So Scotus Actus non est meritorius praecise quia perveniens ex gratia sed quia acceptatur a Deo tanque dignus vita aeterna But where 's the Question then Whether Faith and Love c. are disobedient even in a Gospel account and so uncapable of being Conditions of any of its promised saving Benefits R. In the sense of the Papists they be not but be accepted of God for this end to be federal conditions of a Law Covenant they are perfect in that kind and relation and merit the Benefit but we say tho' any of our Gifts of Grace or Duties are accepted in Christ yet they are not accepted to any Merit or Worthiness of any other Grace federal conditions and worthiness of all Grace and Blessings bestowed on us are only in Christ and hence Faith and Charity and other Gifts of Grace tho' they have a conditional connexion one to another yet they are all of Promise and can't be federal conditions of any promised saving Benefits Mr. C. saith I am against the Articles of the Church of England and the Assembly I am sure he'el never prove it and I profess the contrary but I am sure he 's against all the
he obtained our release but conditionally upon future Terms to be performed by us or some others for then his Suretiship was not for us but to purchase Conditions for us But whether we were joynt Parties in one and the the same Bond with him and so we were actually acquitted when he made satisfaction therefore God could enjoyn no Terms of Application to us for Justification and Glory nor suspend the same upon those Terms This I deny R. What mean you by joynt Parties in one and the same Bond do you mean the Bond of Debt to the Law by reason of the Obligation of Doing and Suffering there we stood bound as Principles and not being able to discharge Christ became bound as Surety we were never bound as Sureties nor Christ as the Principle But if you mean that both were bound to pay the same debt we do affirm it 2. What do you mean by an actual Acquittance Is it not meet that he that hath his Debt satisfied should have an actual Acquittance or their Surety for them there 's no Man pays a Debt his own or anothers but he will have an Acquittance according to the Terms of Payment if they were such as you suppose viz. to purchase a Discharge upon other Terms But you say If Christ were actually acquitted and the elect in him God would not come upon new Terms with the Sinner for Justification and Glory this is as much as to say Christ paid a Fine for Sinners that they might be brought to lower Terms with the Justice of God by a milder Law How false are you when you tell us Your meaning is That Christ's Righteousness is our only justifying Righteousness whereas here you own That it obtained not our full Discharge but only the bringing us under new Terms upon which Justification and Glory are suspended is not the Performance then of those purchased Terms our immediate justifying Righteousness 3. That which you affirm in this first part is pretty unintelligible but according to my Understanding it amounts to no more than that Christ dyed pro bono nostro only which is consistent with all the Socinian Notions of Imputation But as that which you say you deny I want it to be unriddled viz. That Christ was joynt Covenant Party with all the elect in Adam's Covenant so that they are legally esteemed to make Satisfaction and yield Obedience in his doing thereof R. You seem here to suggest as if some did hold That Christ was under Adam's Covenant so as the rest of his Posterity was and consequently fell in him as they did Or do you mean that all the Elect in Christ satisfied the Law as all Adam's Posterity brake it in him and this I suppose you deny Now as unto this Point if I have hit your Meaning I will tell you what a great Divine saith in answer to a Socinian The first Adam was by God's Institution a publick Person having shewed that God's Pleasure is the first Rule of Righteousness hence in him sinning the World sinned The second Adam is not only by God's Institution a publick person but also an infinite Person because God This publick Person doing and suffering was as much as if the World of the Elect had suffered If the first Adam a finite Person was by God's Institution in that Act of Disobedience a World of Men why should it seem strange that the second Adam being an infinite Person should be by God's Institution in the course of his Obedience as the World of the Elect He being infinite there needed no more than God's Pleasure to make him the World of Men yea ten thousand Worlds That which is infinite knoweth no bounds but God's Will The kind of his Obedience was legal the same in Nature and Measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto This his Obedience to the Law was more acceptable to God than the Disobedience of Adam was detestable yea more acceptable than the Obedience of Adam understanding both as publick Persons had he continued in the first Covenant Nort. against Pinch p. 6. 4. That which you affirm of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness here is no more than what you say every where importing no more than as to its Effects but your Expression is strange in saying Christ's Righteousness is reputed by God as that which now plead for our Impurity c. which seems to import that it doth not actually plead but that God is willing to reckon it a kind of Plea So that the Imputation you here intend of Christ's Righteousness is to Christ himself and not to the Sinner But you tell us what you deny You say its this That it is imputed as our formal Righteousness and so we may truly plead that we our selves as Elect did legally by Proxy as our Christ satisfie and merit all and without the Interposal of the Gospel Rule we have a legal Title to glory by Adam s Covenant This I deny as that which excludâ—s Forgiveness makes Christs Sufferings needless denies any proper satisfâ—ction and destroys Christianity Rep. Here 1. You seem to deny Christ's imputed Righteousness to be our formal Righteousness for Christ's Righteousness we reckon to be as it were the Matter of our Justification and being imputed by an Act of Grace becomes our formal as well as material Righteousness for if it become not by Imputation our formal Righteousness it s not our perfect Righteousness for Matter and Form are the essential Causes of the Effect 2. That we in Christ satisfied the Justice of God I know no sound Protestant but will affirm and that legally Mr. B. saith over and over Christ's Righteousness was our legal Righteousness but you will deny that we legally satisfied in Christ May not a Debtor plead that he legally paid the Debt in his Surety tho' not with his own Mony 3. You cast Reproach upon the Suretiship and federal Headship of Jesus Christ by calling him a Proxy and Attorny as our Surety and Representative A Proxy is Vicarious an inferior Person that 's imployed to do Business in the Name and by the Authority of a Superiour so that he is his Vicar or Substitute But is a Father that pays a Sons Debts and purchaseth an Estate for him out of his meer Love Pity and Compassion the Sons Proxy Or if a Man purchase an Estate for his Heirs for ever is he a Proxy to the Children yet unborn And yet their Estate is bought and paid for in him the original Right and Title lies in him the Purchaser Or a rich Man who undertakes for the Debts of an hundred poor Prisoners in Ludgate suppose the King or another great Person out of meer Pity and Commiseration is he their Proxy Is he not their Benefactor and Patron I wonder how you can speak these things without suspecting your own Spirit when you do so manifestly cast Dirt upon Jesus Christ may not I justly say you banter the Doctrin of Imputation 3. But you say