of sins according to the riches of his grace not according to any condition performed by us he having obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9.12 And 2 Cor. 5.18 19. a place which we have often mentioned the Apostle shewes that Christ by his death made such a reconciliation for us as that God thereupon did not impute our sins unto us which was long before any condition could be performed by us Elsewhere That Christ by himselfe purged and expiated our sins Heb. 1.3 and afterwards set downe as having finished that worke chap. 10·12 Now sin that is fully purged and expiated is not imputable to the sinner The same Apostle addes that Christ by his sacrifice hath for ever perfected all them for whom it was offered Heb. 10.14 And in another place that he hath made them compleat as to the forgivenesse of their sins Col. 2.10 13 14. In Rom. 8.33 34. He argues from the death of Christ to the non-imputation of our sins Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth it is Christ â—hat dyed whereas notwithstanding sin would have been chargeable upon them and they condemnable if the death of Christ had not procured their discharge without the intervention of any condition performed by them CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Replyes to the second Objection as he cals it concerning our being Justified in Christ as a common person are examined THe Argument was proposed by me at the time of our Conference in this manner They that were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved were Justified before they beleeved But many were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved Ergo Mr. W. denyed both Propositions The major I proved in this wise If Christ was justified before many â—hat are in him doe beleeve then they that are in him were â—â—stified before they beleeved But Christ was justified before many that are in Christ do beleeve Ergo. His answer hereunto as I remember was I deny all And therefore the Assumption was confirmed from Isa. 50.8 9. in this manner Christ was justified at his resurrection but that happened before many of them who are in Christ as a common person doe beleeve Ergo That Christ was justified at his resurrection is clear from this Text He is near that justifieth me c. Which words I said were uttered by the Prophet in the person of our Saviour in the time of his greatest humiliation who comforted himselfe with this that the Lord would shortly justifie him which was to be done at his Resurrection when the Lord publickly declared to all the world that he was acquitted and discharged from all those sins which were laid upon him and which he as a Surety undertook to satisfie The sequel of the major was also proved by this Enthymem The acts of a common person doe belong unto them whom he represents whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such is to be attributed to them in whose stead he stands and therefore if Christ were justified all that were in him were justified also For seeing that he was not justified from his own but from the sins of others all they whom he represents were justified in his Justification Whereunto hee replyed That Christ was not justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant which did lead us to that discourse of the New Covenant which is afterwards mentioned of which in its place § 2. We shall now take a view of his Replyes to this Argument which we find in his printed copy And 1. he distinguisheth of a threefold Justification 1 Purposed 2 Purchased and 3 Exemplified all which are before Faith So then by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith Which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed It may be he will say as Arminius doth that neither of these were actuall Justification which were a poor put off for as Dr. Twisse observes Omnis Justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de Justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of Justification simply there is no man but understands it of actuall Justification And first That which he cals Justification purposed in the Decree of God is reall and actuall Justification for if Justification be Gods will not to punish or to deal with his Elect according to their sins as both the Psalmist and Apostle do define it then when Gods Will was in actual being their Justification was actual It is absurd to say That God did decree or purpose to will any thing whatsoever his Will being his Essence which admits no cause either within or without God 2 We have shewn before that Justification being taken for the effect of Gods Will to wit our discharge from the Obligation of the Law it was actually because solely and absolutely obtained by the death of Christ there being no other cause out of God which concurs to the producing of this effect § 3. The third Branch of his distinction Justification exemplified is terminus redundans a member that may well be spared for 1 there is not the least hint thereof in Holy Writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or pattern of our Justification For though he is proposed to us as an example in acts of Moral Obedience yet in his works of Mediation he was not so in these he was not an exemplary but a meritorious procuring cause an example is proposed to be imitated and therefore we are frequently exhorted to imitate our Saviour in works of Sanctification but we are no where bid to imitate him in our Justification or in justifying our selves It was needless he should be a pattern of our Justification for this pattern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not unto God because he needs no pattern or example to guide or direct him 2 He that payes our debts to the utmost farthing and thereupon receives a discharge is more then a pattern of our release Our real discharge is in his as our real debt was upon him And therefore his Grand-father Parker said well That Christs Resurrection was the Actual Justâ—fication both of him and us 3 If Christ were onely a pattern and example of our Justification then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ were but a pattern of our Justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed and therefore his Justification must be from his own sins or else the example and counterpart do not agree 4 This expression intimates that as Christ was justified by performing the conditions required of him so we
in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who do conceit the contrary I know not what could be spoken more contradictory to many plain Scriptures which shall be mentioned anone more derogatory to the full atonement which Christ hath made by his Death and more disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the whole weight of their Salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing And therefore after the Exercise was fully ended I desired the Minister that Preached that with his leave and the patience of the Congregation I might remonstrate the insufficiency of his Grounds or Reasons to uphold the Doctrine he had delivered three of which I took more especial notice of One was drawn from the parallel between the first and the second Adam As men said he are not guilty of Adams sin till they have a Being so the Elect have no benefit by Christ till they have a Being whereunto he added those old Philosophical Maxims Non entis non sunt accidentia and Accidentis esse est inesse Another was That where there is no union there can be no communion but there is no union between Christ and the Elect before they believe Therefore the Elect have no communion and participation in the benefits of Christs death before they have a Being and do believe in him The proof of the Assumption was managed thus The union between Christ and the Saints is a personal union which cannot be supposed till their persons have a Being A third ground upon which he laid the greatest stress was to this purpose The Elect have no benefit by Christ before they do believe because God hath made a Covenant with his Son That they for whom he died should be admitted to partake of the Benefits of his death by Faith § 6. Whereunto my Replies were to this effect I told him that I conceived his first Allegation made very much against him For if the Righteousness of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle shews it doth Rom. 5. Then it must follow That the Righteousness of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a Being and then much more before they do believe in him for it is evident that Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation before they had a Being for by that first transgression sayes the Apostle vers 12. Sin entered into the world And more plainly Death passed upon all men The Reason follows because in him or in his loyns all have sinned Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is All that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a Being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that shall be saved were constituted righteous his obedience being imputed unto them by God before they had any Being otherwise then in him as their Head and common Person There is a late Writer who tells us that there is not the same Reason for the imputation of Christs Righteousness to all the Elect before they believe as there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a Being Because says he the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way but the issues of Christs death do come to us in a supernatural way But this Reason seems to me to be of small validity for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed unto none until they are actually propagated and the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate Parents as they do from Adam so that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernatural way i. e. By vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unless they can shew any Proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flow as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force But to return to my discourse with Mr. Warren I added That those Logical axioms non entis c. have no force at all in the present Controversie It doth not follow that Christs Righteousness cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created Being because accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects for as much as imputed Righteousness is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not necessarily require our existence Christ is the Subject of this Righteousness and the imputation of it is an act of God Now the Apostle hath observed That God in justifying and imputing Righteousness calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4.17 As the Righteousness of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarks before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say That Christs Righteousness is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a Being § 7. As to his second Reason before mentioned I excepted as I conceive but justly 1. Against his calling our union with Christ a personal union which seems to favor that absurd notion That a believer loseth not onely his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the Nature and Person of the Son of God Divines do call our union with Christ a Mystical and Spiritual union because it is secret and invisible to be apprehended by Faith and not by Sense or Reason but the Hypostatical or Personal union is proper unto Christ in whom the Divine and Humane Nature do constitute but one Person 2. Against his Assertion proposed Universally That there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe for though there be not that conjugal union between them which consists in the mutual consent of parties yet is there such a true and real union that by means thereof their sins do become Christs and Christs Righteousness is made theirs God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ and all the Elect to be as it were one Heap or Lump one Vine one Body or Spiritual Corporation wherein Christ is the Head and they the Members Christ the Root and they the Branches Christ the First Fruits and they the residue of the Heap In respect of this union it is That they are said to be given
Explication of the Epistle to the Ephesians upon those words Chap. 2.5 He hath quickned us together with Christ says That all the Elect who are the Members of Christ when he by his death had expiated their sins were freed from the guilt of eternal death and obtained a right to eternal life Chamier hath much to this purpose Nobis potius est persuasissimum c. We are most certainly perswaded that our sins are pardoned before we do believe for we deny that Infants do believe and yet Infants have their sins forgiven And a little before viz. Chap. 6. of the same Book I deny saith he that Faith is the cause of our Justification for then our Justification would not be of Grace but of our selves but Faith is said to justifie not because it effecteth Justification but because it is effected in the justified person And in another place to the same purpose Faith doth neither merit obtain nor begin our Justification for if it did then Faith should go before Justification both in nature and time which may in no wise be granted for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification now there is no Sanctification but after Justification Quae re natura prior which is really and in its own nature before it Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier saith That Faith concurs no otherwise to Justification then in respect of the passive application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ unto himself but not in respect of the active application whereby God applieth unto man the Righteousness of Christ which application is in the minde of God and consequently from eternity Dr. Macouvius Professor of Divinity at Franeka hath a whole Determination to this purpose to prove that Justificacation actively considered or as it is the act of God blotting out our sins and imputing the Righteousness of Christ unto us goes before Faith Indeed he makes it to be not an immanent but a transient declared act which the Lord did when he first promised to send his Son to be our Mediator Gen. 3.15 Though one of our late Writers mentions this Doctors Opinion with much contempt and oscitancy calling his Assertions Strange senceless and abhorred which is the less to be regarded seeing he usually metes out the same measure unto all men else whose notions do not square with his own mould as to Dr. Twisse Mr. Walker and them that hold the imputation of Christs active Righteousness whom he calls A sort of ignorant and unstudied Divines c. Yet as he hath merited fairer usage amongst Christians for his other Labors So I dare say his Arguments in this particular will not seem so weak and ridiculous as Mr. Baxter maâ—â— them to an indifferent Reader that shall compare them with the Exceptions which he hath shaped unto them sharp Censures are but dull Answers Dr. Ames his Colâ—eague sayes no less who in his Marrow of Divinity having defined Justification to be the gracious Sentence of God by which he doth acquit us from sin and death and account us Righteous unto life he sayes That this sentence was long before in the minde of God and was pronounced when Christ our Head arose from the dead 2 Cor. 5.19 And in another place All they for whom Christ in the intention of God hath made satisfaction are reconciled unto God I might produce many others that are of eminent note who have asserted That all the Elect are reconciled and justified before they believe Now were all these Champions of Truth a pack of Antinomians and Libertines Hath Mr. Woodbridges humanity no better language to bestow upon them If he shall say he doth not mean them yet his reproaches do fall upon them for if Titius be an Antinomian for saying That the Elect are justified before they do believe Sempronius is an Antinomian who affirms the same § 6. Mr. Burges a man somewhat profuse in this kinde of Rhetorick seems willing to excuse some of those fore-mentioned Divines who have asserted the Remission of sins before Faith because they did it in a particular sence to oppose the Arminians who maintain a reconciliability and not a reconciliation by the death of Christ. But I believe he is not ignorant that Divine Truths are not to be measured by mens intentions let mens ends be never so good they cannot make Error to be Truth or if they are never so corrupt they cannot make Truth to be Error Nor do they whom he calls Antinomians assert Justification before Faith in any other sence then in respect of the absolute and immutable Will of God not to deal with his people according to their sins and in respect of the full satisfaction of Jesus Christ who by that one offering of himself hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified i. e. them whose sins are purged by his blood I could shew how frequently he and others have wounded some of our most eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety through the sides of Antinomians Mr. Burges in his Book of Justif. p. 219. calls it An Antinomian Similitude to say That as a man looking on the Wall through Red Glass conceives the Wall to be of the same colour so God looking upon us in Christ seeth nothing but the Righteousness of Christ in us and no sin at all Which Similitude is used by Dr. Reynolds in his Excellent Treatise on the 110 Psalm where he doth plainly assert that Doctrine which Mr. Burges condemns for Antinomianism Mr. Baxters Character of an Antinomian will bring all our Protestant Writers under this censure For with him they are Antinomians who hold 1 That our Evangelical Righteousness is without us in Christ or performed by him and not by our selves Or 2 That Justification is a free act of God without any condition on our part for the obtaining of it Or else 3 That Justification is an Immanent act and consequently from eternity which was the Judgement of Alsted Pemble Twisse Rutherford c. Or 4 That we must not perform duty for Life and Salvation but from Life and Salvation or that we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation the end of our endeavors but obey in thankfulness and because we are justified and saved c. Now let any man who is moderately versed in our Protestant Writers but speak on whom this Arrow falls I might instance in many others but I will not put the Reader unto so much trouble § 7. My business at present is to acquit this Doctrine of Justification in foro Dei before Faith from Mr. Woodbridges charge of Antinomianism And truly I wonder that he should give it this name For 1. It hath not the least affinity with the Antinomian Tenents which as they are related by Sleiden were That the Law is not to be Preached to bring men to Repentance or unto the sight of their sins That what ever a mans life be
justitia bestow upon them those good things intended towards them in his Eternal Election The onely cause of Christs death was to satisfie the Law he did not die to procure a new Will or Affection in the heart of God towards his Elect nor yet to adde any new thing in God which doth perfect and compleat the act of Election as Wallaeus seems to intimate But that God might save us in a way agreeable to his own Justice that he might confer upon us all those Blessings he intended without wrong and violation to his holy Law for God having made a Law that the soul which sinneth should die the Justice and Truth of God required that satisfaction should be made for the sins of the Elect no less then of other men which they being unable to perform the Son of God became their Surety to bear the Curse and fulfil the Law in their stead God might will unto us sundry benefits which he cannot actually bestow upon us without wrong to his Justice As a King may will and purpose the deliverance of his Favorite who is imprisoned for debt yet he cannot actually free him till he hath paid and satisfied his Creditor So though God had an irrevocable peremptory Will to save his Elect yet he could not actually save them till satisfaction was made unto his Justice which being made there is no let or impediment to stop the current of his Blessings As when the Cloud is dissolved the Sun shines forth when the partition wall is broken down they that were separated are again united So the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned Now that Christ by his death removed this let and hinderance the Scripture is as express as can be desired as that he made an end of sin Dan. 9.24 Blotted it out c. Col. 2.14 Took it quite away as the Scape-goat Levit. 16.22 John 1.29 And slew the enmity between God and us Ephes. 2.16 See Verses 13 14 15. § 4. Fifthly If it were the Will of God that the sin of Adam should immediately over-spread his posterity then it was his Will that the Satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods Elect for there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both to their respective subjects for as the Apostle shews Rom. 5.14 both of them were heads and roots of mankinde Now the sin of Adam did immediately over-spread his posterity All men sinned in him before ever they committed any actual sin Rom. 5.12 14. And therefore the Righteousness of Christ descended immediately upon all the Elect for their Justification Rom. 5.17 18. Sixthly If the Sacrifices of the Law were immediately available for the Typical cleansing of sins under that administration then the Sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately available to make a real atonement for all those sins for which he suffered The reason of the consequence is because the Real Sacrifice is not less efficacious then the Typical Heb. 9.14 But those Legal Sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinners part Levit. 16.30 § 5. Seventhly If it be the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect without any condition performed by them then it was his Will that it should be so for all of them the reason is because the Scripture makes no difference between persons in the communication of this Grace The free gift saith the Apostle came upon all men i. e. In omnes praedestinatos to Justification of life to wit by the gracious imputation of God But it is the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect without conditions performed by them viz. To Elect Infants or else they are not reconciled and consequently they cannot be saved Now if any shall say That God hath a peculiar way of reconciling and justifying Infants or of communicating unto them the Benefits of Christs death let them clear it up from Scripture let them shew us the Text that saith God gives Salvation unto Infants in one manner and to men in another to the one freely and to the others upon conditions If they say Infants have the Seed or Habit of Faith the Scripture will contradict them which affirmeth 1 That they have no knowledge at all either of good or evil Deut. 1.39 And that they cannot so much as discern between the right and the left hand And if so how can they who conceive not of things Natural understand those things that are Heavenly and Spiritual And therefore sayes Augustine If we should go about to prove that Infants know the things of God who as yet know not the things of men our own senses would confute us And can there be Faith without knowledge 2 That Faith cometh by hearing of the Word Preached Rom. 10. Now Infants either hear not or if they do they understand not what they hear We have sufficient experience that no Children give any testimony of Faith until they have been taught and instructed Elect Children which are afterwards manifested to be such are as obstinate and unteachable as any others As for the instance of the Baptist that he believed in his Mothers belly because it is said Luke 1.41 That he was filled with the Holy Ghost c. it doth not prove it for as one observes it is not said Credidit in utero but onely exultavit which exultation or springing Divinitùs facta est in Infante non humanitùs ab Infante And therefore it is not to be drawn into an example or urged as a rule to us what to think of other Infants But if any shall say that Infants do perform the conditions of Reconciliation and Salvation by their Parents then it will follow That all the Children of believing Parents are reconciled and justified because they perform the conditions as much for all as they do for one But I suppose no man will say That all the Children of believing Parents are justified we may as well assert works of supererogation as that one is justified by anothers Faith That any Infants are saved it is meerly from the Grace of Election and the free imputation of Christs Righteousness of which all that are elected are made partakers in the same manner § 6. Eighthly If it were the Will of God that Christ should have the whole glory of our reconciliation it was his will that it should not in the least depend upon our works or conditions because that condition or conditions will share with him in the glory of this effect and our Justification would be partly of Grace and partly of Works partly from Christ and partly from our selves Nay it would bee more from our selves then from Jesus Christ seeing that
our Conference If Faith be given us by vertue of the Covenant made with the House of Israel then is it given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us for the House of Israel is the whole company of Gods Elect who are therefore called Spiritual Israel Rom. 9.6 But Faith or the Spirit which works Faith is promised in the Covenant made with the House of Israel Jere. 31.31 Heb. 8.19 § 6. Whereunto Mr. W. answers 1 by way of retortion If Mr. E. saith he will urge the words of this Text rigorously they would prove more then he would have I hope there is no hurt in that though the place doth prove more that doth no whit invalidate its force as to the purpose for which we alledged it but what is that which it proves more It is manifest says he that this Covenant contains a promise of sending Christ into the world to die for our sins as the Apostle proves Heb. 10.14.15 16. So that we may as well infer from hence that we are in Covenant with God before the death of the Mediator as that we are in Covenant before we believe and then his death shall serve not to obtain all or any of the blessings of the Covenant but onely as the Socinians to declare and confirm c. If he please to admit of a Reply we say 1 That he mistakes the inference that was drawn from hence The Proposition to be concluded was not That we are in Covenant before we believe but that Faith or the Spirit which works Faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us which is sufficiently secured by these Texts for if by the House of Israel be meant all the Elect as undoubtedly they are and the Spirit which works Faith is promised in the Covenant which is made with the House of Israel then the Spirit and Faith are given by vertue of the Covenant which is made with us we being in the number of Gods Elect. 2 It is not so manifest as he pretends that these Texts do contain a promise of sending Christ to die for us The promises here mentioned do express onely what benefits do accrew to us by the Death of Christ I grant that this Covenant supposeth the Death of Christ as the onely meritorious procuring means by which these benefits do flow down unto us and therefore it is said In those days or after those days meaning the days of the Son of Man when the Messiah whom God had promised should be exhibited which in Scripture are called The last days the last times and the world to come c. Though the Apostle mentions the Covenant Heb. 10.15 it is not to prove That God would send his Son to die but that being come as these believing Hebrews acknowledged though they saw not the vertues of his death as to the abolishing of other Sacrifices he hath offered up a perfect Sacrifice Verse 10 12 14. and consequently they needed no other Sacrifice to take away sin for otherwise God had not made such ample promises in reference to the times of the Messiah as you finde he hath Jere. 31. That he will remember the sins and iniquities of his people no more c. For says the Apostle when there is such a full remission there needs no more offering for sin Verse 18. § 7. 3. Though we should grant him that this Text Jere. 31. contains a promise of sending Christ what were this to the purpose to weaken our inference That Faith is given by vertue of the Covenant made with us May not God in the same Covenant promise both Christ and Faith But sayes Mr. W. it will follow then that this Covenant was made with us or that we were in Covenant with God not onely before we believe but before the death of Christ. I am so far from looking upon it as an absurdity that I shall readily own and acknowledge it as an undeniable truth That the New Covenant was made with all the Elect in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid it being the fixed and immutable Will of God concerning all those good things which in time are bestowed upon them and therefore it is called an Everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23.5 not onely a parte post but a parte ante as it shall have no end nor be changed So it had no beginning God having from all eternity immutably purposed in himself to bestow upon them all those blessings which they do receive in time yet we say there are more especially three moments or periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1 immediately upon the fall of Adam when he first published his gracious promise of saving all his Elect by the womans Seed Gen. 3.15 The first Covenant being broken and dissolved the Lord immediately published that other Covenant which cannot be broken and hereunto as hath been shewed do those Scriptures relate Tit. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.9 2 At the death of Christ because thereby all the benefits willed to us by the Everlasting Covenant were merited and procured for us the full price which was paid for them was then exhibited for which cause the New Covenant is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament which was confirmed by the death of the Testator Jesus Christ Heb. 9.17 And the Blood which he shed the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant Heb. 13.20 and the Blood of the New Testament Matth. 26.28 So that his charge of Socinianism doth not touch us for though we do not say That Christ procured the Covenant or that God should will to us â—hose mercies which are therein promised yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the Blood of Christ as our deliverance from the curse inherent holiness c. 3 The Covenant is said to be made with men when God doth confer upon men the benefits which are therein promised or at least makes them to know and understand their interest and propriety therein Thus is that to be understood Isai. 55.3 I will make an Everlasting Covenant i. e. I will fulfil my Everlasting Covenant or bestow upon you all those mercies which I have promised and which my Son hath purchased by shedding of his Blood And thus we grant That God makes his Covenant with his people when he gives them Faith when he enables them to lay hold of it and to plead it at the Throne of Grace now though in this sence God may be said to take men into Covenant when they doe beleeve yet will it not follow that the Spirit and Faith are not given by vertue of the Covenant which is made with us so that his retortion is pittifully unsuccessefull it gives not the least wound to the cause which we maintain § 8. The second branch of his Answer is That upon a most serious perusall of these Texts I finde them so contradictory to Mr. Eyres purpose
Aphorisms who denies That Christs obedience is the material the imputation of his Righteousness the formal cause of our Justification or that Faith is the Instrument by which we do receive it he plainly ascribes the same kinde of causality unto Christ and Faith making them to differ onely secundum magis minus that Christ is the sine qua non principalis and Faith the sine qua non minus principalis he might have listed sin in the same rank which too is a sine qua non of our Justification That Faith and works in a larger sence are meritorious causes of Life and Blessedness Now we say with Mr. Cr. 1 That God is the efficient cause or the onely Justifier that he hath no motive or inducement but his own Grace and Love to will not to punish us and to give to us his Son thorow whom we have Redemption◠and Deliverance from the curse of the Law We say too 2 that Christ is the onely meritorious cause of our Justification taking Justification pro re volita for a transient effect of the Will of God that Jesus Christ hath by his death and satisfaction fully procured and merited our Discharge and Absolution from the penalty of the Law which we deserved by sin For which cause he is said to have purged our sins by himself i. e. Without the help and assistance of other means Heb. 1.3 There are many who ore tenùs in word do acknowledge That Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification that in deed do deny it The Papists in the Councel of Trent say That God is the efficient the glory of God the final the death of Christ the meritorious cause of our Justification But yet we know that they allow not this effect unto it unless other things do concur on our parts they say That Faith Charity c. do Impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Obtain and after a sort merit forgiveness though not by their own worth and dignity yet by vertue of Gods Covenant and Promise Too many of our Protestants setting aside the word merit which yet Mr. B. thinks may be admitted do tread directly in their steps they ascribe as much unto works as Papists do It is a poor requital unto Jesus Christ to call him the Meritorious cause of our Justification and in the mean while to deny the merit of his death as to the immediate purchases thereof and to ascribe at least a partial meritoriousness to other things 3 I shall go further with Mr. Cr. I freely grant him which I believe Mr. W. will stick at That Faith is the Instrument by which we receive and apply the Righteousness of Christ unto our selves whereby the gratious sentence of God acquitting us from our sins is conveyed and terminated in our Consciences We say indeed That Faith doth not concur to our Justification as a proper Physical Instrument which is a less principal Efficient cause Mr. Rutherford saith well That Faith is not the Organical or Instrumental cause either of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation thereof on our behalf By believing we do not cause either our Saviour to satisfie for our sins or God to accept of his satisfaction Every true Believer is perswaded That God hath laid aside his wrath and displeasure towards him for his sins having received a sufficient ransom and satisfaction for them in the death of his Son Sed hoc fides non facit saith he sed objectum jam factum praesupponit Faith is a Receptive not an Effective Instrument an Instrument not to procure but to receive Justification and Salvation which is freely given us in Jesus Christ. It is called an Instrumental cause of our Justification taking Justification passively not actively or in reference to that passive Application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ to himself but not to that active Application whereby God applyeth it to a man which is onely in the minde of God Therefore Calvin calls Faith Opus passivum a passive work § 4. Mr. Cr. proceeds This Doctrine saith he hath in all ages been opposed and obscured sometimes by open Enemies sometimes by professed Friends and such as would be accounted the great Pleaders for Free-grace It is most true That this Article of Free Justification hath and will be a Bone of Contention to the worlds end It is the cheif cause of all those contests and quarrels which have arisen between the Children of the Free-woman and the Children of the Bond-woman Mr. Fox hath well observed It is so strange to carnal Reason so dark to the World it hath so many enemies that except the Spirit of God from above do reveal it Learning cannot reach it Wisdom is offended Nature is astonished Devils do not know it Men do persecute it Satan labors for nothing more then that he may either quite bereave men of the knowledge of this truth or else corrupt the simplicity of it It is not unknown what batteries were raised against it in the very infancy of the Church how the Wits and Passions of men conspired to hinder it what monstrous consequences were charged upon the Doctrine and what odious practises were fathered upon them that did profess it never was any truth opposed with so much malice and bitterness as this hath been and by them especially that were most devout and zealous But when it could not be withstood and stifled Satan endeavored then to deprave and adulterate it by mixing of the Law with the Gospel our own Righteousness with Christs which corruption the Apostle hath strenuously opposed in all his Epistles and more especially in that to the Romans and Galatians where he excludes all and singular works of ours from sharing in the matter of our Justification For the eluding of whose Authority carnal Reason hath found out sundry shifts and distinctions As that the Apostle excludes onely works of Nature but not of Grace Legal but not Evangelical works and that our works though they are not Physical yet they may come in as Moral causes of our Justification It is certain That the most dangerous attempts against this Doctrine have been within the Church and by such as Mr. Cr. calls Professed Friends who have done so much the more mischief in regard they were least apt to be suspected Justification by works was generally exploded amongst us whilest it appeared under the names of Popery and Arminianism which since hath found an easie admittance being vented by some of better note such as would be accounted Pleaders for Free-grace § 5. Mr. Woodbridges Discourse saith Mr. Cr. deals not with the Errors of Papists Socinians Arminians but with Antinomian Error How unjustly our Doctrine is called Antinomian hath been shewn before and Mr. Cr. may be pleased to take notice That Mr. Rutherford accounts the Opinion we oppose the very cheif of the Arminians Socinians and Papists Errors about Justification to wit That
it being in terminis in the Text. I dare say no man that is called a Christian did ever deny it and therefore he might have spared his pains in transcribing any more places of Scripture for confirmation of it But I do much marvel That so learned a man as Mr. W. who pretends to be more then ordinarily accurate should take in hand a controverted Text and never open the Terms nor state the Question which he meant to handle for though it be a sinful curiosity for men by Dicotomies and Tricotomies Divisions and Subdivisions to mince and crumble the Scriptures till it hath lost the sense yet surely a workman that needs not to be ashamed ought rightly to divide the Word of Truth explain things that are obscure and dubious and where divers senses are given as he knows there are of this Text to disprove the false and confirm that which he conceives is true § 3. There is a vaste distance between the Apostles Proposition a man is justified by Faith and Mr. Woodbridges Inference Ergo Justification doth in no sence precede Faith Justification by Faith and Justification before Faith are not opposita but diversa though they differ yet they are not contradictory to each other The Scriptures which prove the former intend no strife or quarrel against the latter in a word The proof of the one doth not disprove the other The Scripture which he made his theam Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by Faith we have peace with God c concludes nothing at all against Justification before Faith For 1 we may without any violence to the Text place the Comma after justified as thus Being justified by Faith we have peace with God This reading is agreeable both to the Apostles scope and to the Context His scope here was not to shew the efficacy of Faith in our Justification but what benefits we have by the death of Christ the first of which is Justification and the consequent thereof is peace with God Again the Illative Particle Therefore shews that this place is a Corollary or Deduction from the words immediately foregoing which ascribed our Justification wholly to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ Chap. 4 ult The Apostle thence infers Being justified q. d. Seeing we are justified freely without works by the death of Christ by Faith we have peace with God the Lord powerfully drawing our hearts to believe this we have boldness and confidence towards God the cause of fear being taken away or as the Syriack and vulgar Latin read it Let us have peace with God let us by Faith improve this Grace for the establishing of our hearts in perfect peace Now according to this reading his own Text will give in evidence against him That Faith is not the cause or antecedent but an effect and consequent of our Justification procured and obtained by the death of Christ. But 2 if we take the words as commonly they are read the sence comes all to one scil That being justified by Christ who is the sole object of our Faith we have peace with God who by the Faith which he creates in us causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation by vertue whereof our Conscience is so firmly grounded that we are not moved by any temptation or beaten down by any terror The Work of Faith is not to procure our Justification but to beget peace in our Consciences So then the words being rightly understood they neither deny Justification before Faith nor assert Justification by the act or habit of Faith which Mr. W. would conclude from thence § 4. The next Scripture whose suffrage is desired against us is Gal. 2.16 We have believed in Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ. Where sayes Mr. W. Justification is expresly made a Consequent of Faith To which I Answer 1 That this doth no more infer That we are not justified before we believe then that of our Saviour Matth. 5.44 45. Love your enemies c. that ye may be the children of your Father in Heaven infers That works do go before adoption contrary to Eph. 1.5 6. 1 Joh. 3.3 the phrase that ye may be there is as much as that ye may be manifested and declared that ye may shew your selves or that all men may know that ye are the children of God by practising a duty so much above the reach of Nature and Morality A like place we have Rom. 3.26 God set forth his Son to declare his Righteousness that he might be just Now shall we hence infer That God was not just before or that Gods justice was a consequent of his sending Christ Now if we can understand that clause that he might be just That he might be known and acknowledged to be just Why may we not as well take this of the Apostle that we might be justified in the same construction that we might know that we are justified and live in the comfort and enjoyment of it So that not the Being of our Justification but the Knowledge and Feeling of it is a consequent of Faith Things in Scripture are then said to be when they are known to be so John 15.8 our Saviour tells the Disciples That if they did bear much fruit they should be his Disciples i. e. They should be known and manifested to be his Disciples as Chap. 13.35 Our Saviour is said at his Resurrection to have become the Son of God Acts 13.33 Because then as the Apostle speaks he was powerfully declared to be the Son of God Rom. 1.3 Again things are saâ—d not to be which do not appear as Melchisedec is said to be without Father and Mother c. Heb. 7.3 Because his Linage and Pedigree is not known so we are said to be justified or not justified according as this Grace is revealed to us But 2 in the Text it is We have believed that we might be justified by Faith so that from hence it can be inferred onely That we are not justified by Faith before believing and that the sentence of Justification is not terminated in our Consciences before we do believe § 5. His next Proof is grounded upon the order of the words Rom. 8.30 As glory saith he follows Justification so doth Justification follow Vocation unto Faith Whereunto I answer 〈◊〉 That the order of words in Scripture do not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves The Jews have a Proverb Non esse prius aut posterius in Scriptura The first and last must not be strictly urged in Scripture for that is not always set first which is first in Nature If we should reason from the order of words in Scripture we should make many absurdities as 1 Sam. 6.14 It is said that they clave the Wood of the Cart and offered the Kine for a burnt offering unto the Lord And then in the next Verse it follows That the Levites took down the Ark out of the Cart as
controversie would be but a meer Tautology for though it be the same Justification wherewith we are iustified in the sight of God and in the Court of Conscience yet the terms are not equipollent and convertible but do admit of distinct considerations though he that is justified in foro conscientiae is also justified in foro Dei yet every one that is justified in foro Dei is not justified in foro conscientiae § 3. Now according to these several Senses which are given of this forementioned phrase it will be easie to resolve the third Query concerning the time of our Justification when we were justified in the sight of God 1. If we take it in this last Construction I shall grant That we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe We do not know nor can we plead the benefits and comforts of this Blessed Priviledge until we do believe it is by Faith that the Righteousness of God is revealed to us and it is by his knowledge notitia sui that Christ doth justifie us or inables us to plead not guilty to all the Indictments and Menaces of the Law But 2. if we refer it to the justice of God which I conceive to be the most proper and genuine use of it we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his Blood for all our sins that ransome of his set them for whom he died free from the Curse of the Law cleansed them from all their sins and presented them holy blameless and unreproveable in the sight of God so that the eye of Divine Justice cannot behold in them the least spot of sin This perfect cleansing is the sole and immediate effect of the death of Christ in regard that no other cause concurs therewith in producing of it 3. If we refer it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himself not to impute to us our sins or to inflict those punishments upon us which our sins deserve but contrariwise to deal with us as righteous persons having given us the Righteousness of his own Son God doth certainly know whatsoever he wills Now God having from all eternity absolutely and immutably willed the Righteousness of his Son to all his Elect he saw or knew them to be righteous in his Righteousness even when he willed it § 4. For the clearer understanding of the Point in question I shall give in my Judgement concerning it as distinctly as I can in three Propositions proposition 1 The first shall be this That Justification is taken variously in the Scripture but more especially Pro volitione divina pro re volita as the Schools do speak 1 For the Will of God not to punish or impute sin unto his people and 2 for the effect of Gods Will to wit His not punishing or his setting of them free from the Curse of the Law That Justification is put for the effect of Gods will or the thing willed by that Internal Act to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment I suppose there is none will question the onely scruple that can arise is Whether the Will of God not to punish or charge sin upon a person is or may be called Justification I confess to the end that I might not offend the weak I have been sparing of calling this immanent act of God by the name of Justification and the rather because some gross mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of this expression As 1 that absurd conceit That Christ came not to satisfie the justice but onely to manifest the love of God which yet hath not the least countenance from our Doctrine seeing that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect we say That the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no less then for the sins of others And 2 their notion who upon this ground have asserted the Eternal Being of the Creature whereunto they were driven because they could not answer that Consequence Justificatus est Ergo Est which holds not in terminis diminuent ibus whether à priori as Electus est Ergo Est or à posteriori Mortuus est Ergo Est. Yet I must profess That I look upon Dr. Twisse his judgement in this point as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the Will of God not to punish Mr. Kendal though he makes Justification to be a declared sentence or transient act of God yet he grants That Gods Will or Decree to remit our sins carries in it a remission of them tan◠amount for who shall charge them on us if God decree to remit them And again This Decree hath so much in it that looks so well like unto Justification that is may be called so without Blasphemy But I see no inconvenience at all but rather very much reason to adhere unto the Doctors definition That Justification is the Will of God not to punish 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives us of Justification is most properly applied to this act of God It is a certain rule Definitum est cui convenit definitio that is Justification whereunto the definition of Justification doth agree The definition which the Psalmist and from him the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and his imputing of righteousness unto a person Psal. 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 8. Now when God willeth not to punish a person he doth not impute sin to him The original words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified do make it more clear for both of them do signifie an act of the minde or will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used by the Psalmist is properly to think repute esteem or account and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same signification it is usually applied to Accountants who when they have cast up many sums do set down at the foot what they do amount unto So when a man hath accounted with himself the loss and benefit conveniencies and inconveniencies that may accrue unto him the result and issue of his deliberation is significantly expressed by this word it notes a stedfast purpose and resolution Quae quasi rationibus subductis explicatis conclusa est it is opposed unto a doubtful and uncertain opinion It notes either the purpose or determination of one alone or the consent and agreement of two between themselves whereof Camerarius gives us an instance out of Zenophon This word is fitly used to signifie this immanent act of God for though he doth not purpose and resolve in that manner as men do by comparing things together or by reasoning and concluding one thing out of another yet are his purposes much more firm and immutable Mal. 3.6 Jam. 1.17 Numb 23.19 The Lord therefore did non-impute sin
to his people when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant That his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins would deserve The Remonstrants do acknowledge That non-imputation or remission of sin is an immanent act in God Quam Deus in sua ipsius mente efficit We are commanded to forgive one another as God hath forgiven us now we know that our forgiveness is principally an act of the heart As when a man purposeth in himself not to take revenge he doth then forgive But of this we shall have occasion to speak more largely in our Answer to Mr. Woodbridges first Argument 2. That which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification but by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. The Assumption onely will need to be proved which is abundantly confirmed 1 by those places which make mention of Gods unspeakable Grace and Love towards them from everlasting For what is the Love of God but his velle dare bonum his fixed and immutable Will to bestow upon them the greatest good that they are capable of Now when God set his love upon them he said unto them Live Ezek. 16.6 This Will of God did secure them from death and destruction it was a real discharge from condemnation But 2 more plainly from the words of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect. The Proposition is either a Universal Negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or a Universal Affirmative All Elect persons are free from the charge of sin Which way soever we take it is evident That the Proposition is Universal Now if this priviledge did belong onely to Elect Believers as some would limit the Text the Proposition were false for though all true Believers are Elect persons yet all the Elect are not Believers It is as if one should say Omne animal is rationale and to excuse it say That by Omne animal he meant omnis homo and to prove the Expression Legitimate should alledge that homo is often called animal which is true but very impertinent to prove that omne animal may be put for omnis homo § 5. All that I have yet seen alledged against this Member of the distinction That Gods will not to punish is not Justification is of little moment It is objected 1. That hereby Justification and Election are objection 1 confounded I answer That it follows not they may be both of them immanent eternal Acts and yet not confounded For Election and Reprobation are eternal immanent Acts yet they are not confounded Indeed all different immanent acts are but one simple act in God in whose Decrees there is no Priority or Posteriority seeing as Hilary speaks Omnia penès Deum aequabili aeternitatis infinitate consistunt Yet in our consideration they receive sufficient distinction from their various Objects and our various Applicatâ—on of them And thus Election and Justification are distinguished Election includes both the end which is the glory of Gods Grace and all the means from the beginning to the ending conducing thereunto His will not to punish includes precisely and formally onely some part of the means 2. It is objected That Justification imports â— change of the objection 2 persons state to wit Ab injusto ad justum which cannot be attributed to the simple and unchangeable Decrees of God I answer That if Justification be taken for the thing willed viz. The delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law then there is a great change made thereby he that was a childe of wrath by Nature hath peace and reconciliation with God But if we take it for the Will of God not to punish then we say Justification doth not suppose any such change as if God had first a will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his will to a will not to punish them The change therefore of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man in reference thereunto by whose sentence the Transgressor is unjust but being considered at the tribunal of Grace and cloathed with the Righteousness of Christ he is just and righteous which is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person God may be said at the same time to look upon a person both as sinful and as righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature and as righteous in reference to his state by Grace Now this change being but imputed not inherent it supposeth not the being of the Creature much less any inherent difference in the state of the Creature no more then electing love makes any inherent present change Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth objection 3 3. Others have objected That hereby we make void the death of Christ for if Justification be an immanent act in God it is Antecedent not onely to Faith but to the merits of Christ which is contrary to many Scriptures that do ascribe our Justification unto his blood as the meritorious cause To which I answer That although Gods will not to punish be Antecedent to the death of Christ yet for all we may be said to be justified in him because the whole effect of that will is by and for the sake of Christ. As though electing Love precede the consideration of Christ John 3.16 yet are we said to be chosen in him Eph. 1.4 because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him Gods non-punishing of us is the fruit of his death yet his will not to punish is Antecedent thereunto objection 4 4. Others say we may as well call his will to create Creation and his will to call Calling and to glorifie Glorification as his will to justifie Justification We Answer That there is not the same Reason for creating calling and glorifying all which do import an Inherent change in the person created called glorified which forgiveness doth not it being perfect and compleat in the minde of God § 6. These things being weighed in the ballances of an equal Judgment I suppose the phrase would not sound so harsh as it doth to many however were the thing it self granted That there was in God from Everlasting an absolute fixed and immutable will never to deal with his people according to their sins but to deal with them as righteous persons this Controversie were ended For 1 Gods non-imputation of sin to his Elect is not purely Negative as the non-imputation of sin unto
a Stone or other Creatures which are not capable of sinning but Privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of Righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentiâ The difference between these is as great as between a mans will not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted and his will not to require any thing of one that never did nor will ow him any thing 2 This non-imputation of sin is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being in like manner the imputation of Righteousness is actual though the Righteousness to be imputed is not actual Man whose thoughts arise de novo doth non-impute usually after the commission of a fault but for God who is without any shadow of change and turning so to do is absolutely impossible for as much as there cannot arise any new will or new thought in the heart of God 3 This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable Will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it and he in like manner imputing Righteousness none can hinder it Neither doth this render the death of Christ useless which is necessary by the Ordinance of God as a meritorious cause of all the effects of this Justification even as the eternal Love of God is compleat in it self but yet is Christ the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Eph. 1.3 4. And therefore we say § 7. 2. That if Justification be taken as most commonly it proposition 2 is not for the Will of God but for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Though there be no cause of the former out of God himself for the merits of Christ do not move God to will not to punish or impute sin unto us yet is Christ the meritorious cause of the latter It is from the vertue of his Sacrifice that the obligation of the Law is made void and the punishments therein threatned do not fall upon us By his death he obtained in behalf of all the Elect not a remote possible or conditional reconciliation but an actual absolute and immediate reconciliation as shall be proved anon And in this respect all that were given unto Christ by the Father may be said to be justified at his death not onely virtually but formally for the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor Their discharge from the Law was not to be sub termino or in Diem but present and immediate it being impossible that a debt should be discharged and due at the same time We acknowledge That the effects of this discharge from the Law may be said to be sub termino or in Diem As for instance from that full satisfaction and perfect Righteousness which Christ hath performed there arise these two things One is The non-execution of the desert of sin which we continually commit upon us That whereas the Reprobate sin and upon their sin the curse with all the evils included in it is upon them The Elect likewise sinning yet for Christs sake the curse or evil of suffering is not inflicted upon them which non-punishing quoad effectum is forgiving and not imputing sin And in this sense God is frequently said to forgive when he doth not inflict punishment and in this sense also he is said often to forgive The other is The imputation of Righteousness in the effects of it whereby the effects of a true and perfect Righteousness come upon the people of God to wit All good things both for this life and that which is to come yea those things which seem to be evil and hurtful as their falls and afflictions are ordered by the over-ruling hand of a wise and powerful Providence to work together for good unto them These effects are immediate in respect of causality though not of time for though God doth not presently bestow them but as he sees fit both for his own glory and for their good yet do they immediately slow from the merit of Christ in regard there is no other meritorious cause that intervenes and concurs therewith in procuring of them Notwithstanding we say That our discharge from the Law must needs be immediate and present with the price or satisfaction that was paid for it in regard That it implies a contradiction a debt should be paid and discharged and yet justly chargable But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter § 8. 3. Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution proposition 3 and forgiveness And thus God is said to justifie men when he reveals and makes known to them his Grace and Kindness within himself And in this sense do most of our Divines take Justification defining it The declared sence of absolution and not improperly For in Scripture phrase as was noted before things are then said to be when they are declared and manifested the declaring of things is expressed in such wise as if it made them to be whereof many instances might be given a very plain one there is Gen. 41.13 Pharaohs cheif Butler speaking of Josephs interpretation Me says he he restored and him i. e. the Baker he hanged whereas he did but declare these successes unto them So God is said to justifie his people when he manifests and reveals to them that mercy and forgiveness which before was hidden in his own heart to wit that he doth not impute their sins but contrariwise doth impute Righteousness unto them Now the Lord at sundry times and divers ways hath and doth declare and manifest this precious Grace unto his people 1 More Generally towards all his Elect and 2 more Particularly to individuals or numerical persons The former is done 1 in the Word of God and 2 in his Works and Actions § 9. First God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to his people in his Word The Gospel or New Covevant being an absolute promise as we shall shew anon may be fitly termed a Declarative Sentence of Absolution unto all the Elect to whom alone it doth belong the publication of the New Covenant is their Justification For which cause Maccovius makes Justification to Commence from the first promise which was pronounced before the curse So that if Adam had not been a publick person including both the Elect and Reprobate there had been no curse at all pronounced save onely upon the Serpent or Satan in reference to this promise it was that the Apostle saith The Grace of God 2 Tim. 1.9 and eternal life Tit. 1.2 was given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie eternity as our Translators carry it but the beginning of time it is of the same latitude with 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thes. 2.13 some learned men have observed that the phrase is most properly rendered ante tempora secularia i. e. ante multa secula vel sub initio seculorum to wit in that famous promise of the womans seed Gen. 3.15 Now what was that Grace and Life which was given us in the beginning of times but the Grace of Free Justification whereby we are made to stand just and righteous in the sight of God This Grace was revealed more clearly and distinctly in after ages it shined brighter and brighter till the day spring from on high did visit us Whose coming made it perfect day in comparison whereof former times were obscure darkness Joh. 3.19 Eph. 3.5 2 Cor. 3.18 c. And therefore Grace and Life is peculiarly ascribed to the times of the New Testament or the clear exhibition of the New Covenant at the coming of Jesus Christ 2 Tim. 1.10 And the Gospel is said to cleanse and sanctifie men i. e. to justifie them or to purge them from an evil Conscience John 15.3 17.17 § 10. Secondly God hath declared his gracious sentence of non-imputing sin and imputing Righteousness unto his people in his Works and Actions both towards Christ and towards themselves In his actions or dealing with Jesus Christ two ways 1 In charging or transacting all their sins and iniquities upon him Isai. 53.6 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 2.24 The Lord thereby declared his will and purpose not to charge sin upon them for whom Christ interposed himself a surety His imputing of our sins to Christ was formally the non-imputing of them to us Gods accounting of them unto him was a discounting of them unto us for they could not be accounted or charged upon both without a manifest contradiction in the thing it self and in the justice of God as it is that a debt should be wholly accounted to and discharged by the surety and yet the same debt afterward be justly accounted to and charged upon him that first contracted it I confess a debt may be charged both upon the Principal and Surety before it be discharged though afterwards to neither But the case was not so between Christ and us God did not take his Elect and Christ joyntly to make satisfaction or him upon our failing or us upon his but transacted the whole debt upon him alone Now I say the Lord laying our iniquities in such a manner upon Christ singly absolutely and irrevocably he plainly declared thereby that it was his will never to lay them to our charge 2 In that publick discharge or acquittance which he gave unto Christ at his Resurrection the Lord by raising him from the dead and as it were setting him free out of prison openly declared That he had received full satisfaction for all those sins which Christ as a surety had taken upon him viz. For all the sins of all the Elect. And for this reason as an eminent Divine observes the Lord sent an Angel to remove the stone from the mouth of the Sepulcher not to supply any want of power in Christ who could himself have rouled it away with one of his fingers but as a Judge when the Law is satisfied sendeth an Officer to set open the prison unto him who hath made that satisfaction So the Father to testifie that his Justice was fully satisfied with the price which his Son had paid sent an Officer of Heaven to open the prison doors and to set him free Christs Resurrection was a solemn judicial act whereby God the Supream Judge justified both him and us 1 Him from all those sins which he had undertaken whereunto our Divines do apply these following Scriptures Isai. 50.8 9. 1 Tim. 3.16 Acts 13.35 Heb. 9.21 2 Us from our own sins The Resurrection of Christ was as Mr. Parker says well an actual Justification of all them for whom he became a Surety for 1 he was not justified from any sins of his own being in himself just and innocent but from those sins which were charged upon him in his death which saith the Prophet were the iniquities of us all Isa. 53.6 If a debt be discharged it cannot without manifest injustice be charged again the discharge of the Surety is the discharge of the Principal God by acquitting Christ from the guilt of our sins did also fully acquit us from the same 2 Christ in his Death and Resurrection was a common person as in his death he was condemned for our sins so in his Resurrection he was justified from our sins All the Elect were justified in his Justification there is the same reason for their Justification in Christ as there is for the Condemnation of mankinde in Adam Therefore sayes the Apostle Rom. 5.18 us by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so or in like manner by the Righteousness of one Man Christ the Free-gift came upon all men viz. All in Christ unto Justification of Life § 11. Besides the General Declaration of Forgiveness unto all the Elect this Gracious Sentence is also declared to particular persons 1. Externally in foro Ecclesiae by the Sacrament of Baptism the Minister of Christ standing in his stead by Dipping or Pouring water upon a person doth in his Name or by his Authority declare and publish the washing away of his sins by the Blood of Christ The principal thing which Baptism holds forth is our Justification it was ordained for the remission of sins Luke 3.3 and Acts 2.38 not to obtain or procure this benefit ex opere operato but to declare and obsignate unto men their interest therein In Rom. 6.3 4 5. we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism and to be implanted thereby into the similitude of his Death and Resurrection The meaning is That our Communion in the benefits of both is hereby ratified and confirmed to us Upon this ground I conceive it was That in the old Liturgy persons baptised are said to be regenerated or born again i. e. Translated into a new state viz. From the old Adam into the new Adam From the power of darkness to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ Col. 1.13 Which Baptism doth not effect but declare and seal it having no other cause but the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ Tit. 3.5 1 Pet. 3.21 1 John 1.7 The late Assembly in their Directory say as much viz. That Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace of our ingrafting into Christ of our union with him of our remission of sins c. It is strange to me That they who say Baptism is a Seal of our Justification and hold that Infants who have not Faith ought to be baptised should deny that Justification precedes Faith Now though this Declarative Sentence be but ministerial and meerly of order like the power of loosing John 20.23 applied to Hypocrites to the greatest part of them that are baptised whether they be Infants
any reall sweetnesse in Christ and the Gospel but must needs have some evidence of his interest propriety and title to him Now because as Dr. Ames observes by this act of Faith wherewith we rest and rely upon Christ proposed to us in the Gospell we doe immediately attaine to the assurance of this Truth that my sins in particular are pardoned by Jesus Christ therefore some have seemed to speake as if this Proposition I am Justified my sins are forgiven me were the proper object of Justifying Faith I shall not stand to defend this Expression though the Doctor doth highly approve of it Nor will I quarrell with Mr. W. about his Expression though I conceive his terme Axiomatical is somewhat too narrow for Faith may be said to evidence our Justification immediately though it doth it not Axiomatically but Organically to wit as it is the organ or Instrument whereby we doe apprehend and adhere unto Christ by whom we are justified in the sight of God the latter term is more adequate to the nature of Faith which is not only the assent of the Mind but the adhesion of the Will to the object beleeved But I shall yeeld him his term and do say that Faith may be said to evidence our Justification Axiomatically yet not by assenting to that which is not revealed but by assenting to and withall tasting and relishing those indefinite and general Propositions Invitations and Promises that are held forth to us in the Gospell which by a secret and inscrutable worke of the Holy Spirit are applyed and made particular to the soule of a true beleever for otherwise he could never taste any sweetnesse in them So that Mr. Woodbridges exclamation against a carnall presumptuous and soule-damning Faith is altogether impertinent seeing we doe not say that a man is justified by his assent to written and therefore much lesse to unwritten verities If Justifying Faith were no more then an Axiomaticall assent as Mr. W. seems to intimate it is I see no reason why all they that have such a Faith as Devils and Reprobates who beleeve with an historical assent should not be justified this is really the carnall presumptuous damning Faith of the world § 8. His second reason against Faiths evâ—dencing our Justification Axiomatically is nothing to the purpose The Faith saith he by which we are justified is the Faith which the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel are to preach to the whole world and to presse it upon their consciences Act. 20.21.13.38.39 But we cannot presse upon every man in the world to beleeve that he is Justified c. Seeing we do not presse every man to beleeve that he is justified though according to our commission given us from Christ we do presse all men to beleeve 1. Assensu intellectus to acknowlege that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of Sinners that they themselves are such and that it is impossible for them to escape the curse by any other means 2. Amplexu vel motu voluntatis to accept embrace and cleave unto Jesus Christ being infinitely better for them then all the world besides By this it will appear what little reason Mr. W. hath to charge us with pressing men to believe a lie seeing we require no mans assent to any thing which is not true We do not press every man to believe That he is justified but to believe that there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification and to relie upon him and him alone for this Benefit § 9. So that there will be no need for Mr. Eyre to retract his Sermons as falshoods which he hath formerly preached against Universal Redemption For though the command of believing be to be pressed upon all men in that manner as hath been shewn yet it will not follow that Christ died for all men It seems Mr. W. is offended at those Sermons of mine since he hath had a smack of Mr. B. notions That Christ died conditionally for all men yea for the Reprobates themselves which though it be countenanced with the names of Cameron Testardus and Amyraldus of some others who are of great note amongst our own yet may I have leave to speak my minde I conceive it to be very unsound For 1. To say that Christ died for any upon an impossible condition is to say That he died in vain at least so far or in respect of them which the Apostle looks upon as a gross absurdity Gal. 2.21 2. For whom Christ died he without doubt purchased Faith and all necessary good things This the Apostle accounts unquestionable Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own Son but gave him to death for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things What is Mr. Woodbridges Judgement in this point I cannot tell nor doth it much matter that I should enquire I need not inform him what advantage they that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sence do make of his Doctrine of a Conditional Justification impetrated by the death of Christ It is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they have to shelter their heads withal when they are pressed That if Christ died for all then all shall be saved because it must needs be that Christ must have the purchases of his death John 11.42 Isa. 53.11 No say they it will not follow because some do not perform the condition required on their parts These two Propositions Christ redeemed all men and yet the impenitent unbelieving and reprobate World shall never be saved by him may be easily reconciled because the benefits of Christs death are given upon condition not absolutely and therefore they that do not perform the condition shall never be saved by his death It were easie to shew that this salvability or conditional Salvation is the very Corner Stone in the Remonstrants building § 10. This passage puts me in minde of two absurdities which Mr. J. Woodbridge my Antagonists Brother who a while after came and preached over his Brothers Arguments with some small Additions charged upon our Doctrine The first was That it doth necessarily infer Universal Redemption Will it follow That because the Elect are justified in forâ— Dei before they believe therefore all men are redeemed and justified One may as well reason Some men were elected before they believed Ergo All men were elected Perhaps he will say we cannot press or exhort every man to believe That he is justified unless all men are justified There is no more necessity that we should press every man to believe that he is justified then that he is elected This is pitifully inconsequent The second was That it raseth the Foundation of all actions tending to the gathering and reforming of Churches why should any be excluded from Church Ordinances if they are justified 1 I must tell him That I cannot think him an hearty friend to the gathering and reforming of Churches who
when Noah offered up his burnt-offerings to God The Lord smelled a sweet savor c. Gen. 8.21 So when Christ offered up himself a sacrifice of atonement the Lord smelled a savor of rest and was fully satisfied for the sins of his people 3 There is no reason can be given why those words should be terminated to the person of Christ seeing that God was never displeased with him nor had our Saviour any doubt or suspition of it and therefore it was altogether needless that God should declare his well-pleasedness to him in his own person 4 The well-pleasedness of God is to be extended unto them for whom Christ offered up his sacrifice but Christ did not offer up his sacrifice for himself but onely for sinners Ergo. § 3. Well haec non successit alia aggrediamur via his next Exception therefore is That if we should extend it unto men the exception 2 words prove no more then that it is through Christ that God is well pleased with men whensoever it be that he is well pleased So that in his sense I am well pleased is as much as I will be well pleased with them when they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part A gloss which I dare say was never dreamed of by any Expositor before himself Here 1 let the Reader observe how bold he makes with the Holy Ghost for when God tells us he is well pleased to say no he is not now but he will hereafter is not to interpret but contradict the Scripture 2 His gloss contradicts it self for if our reconciliation with God doth depend upon terms and conditions performed by us then it is not through Christ alone that God is well pleased with men whensoever it is and Christ is at most but a partial cause of our reconciliation § 4. But to render his Paraphrase more probable he hath cited divers other places where as he pretends Verbs and Participles of the Present tense have the signification of the future Though says he the Verb in this place be not the Present tense but the first Aorist though it be the Aorist what is that to the purpose seeing as every School-boy knows the Aorists have the signification of the Preterperfect tense and not of the Future and if that enunciation will hold in the Preterperfect tense as Beza grants then is it much more true in the Present tense But to his Allegations I answer 1 That in most of his instances there is no necessity to feign a change of Tenses as John 4.25 Messiah cometh i. e. The promise of the Messiah draws nigh to be fulfilled So Chap. 5.25 The hour is coming and now is c. The dead did then hear the voice of the Son of man both in his own and in his Disciples Ministery So 2 Cor. 3.16 the Verbs are most properly rendred in the Present tense When Israel shall or doth turn unto the Lord the vail is taken away for as Cameron notes their Conversion to God doth not precede the taking away of the vail but both are at the same time Rom. 8.24 By hope we are saved The enunciation is true and emphatical in the Present tense for in many other places the Saints are said to be saved and to have eternal life whilest they are in the body John 3.36 5.24 6.54 56. Col. 2.10 Eph. 2.5 8. Tit. 3.5 1 John 5.11 12. They have here the beginnings or first-fruits of that Salvation the complement and perfection whereof they as yet do wait for they have now the joy and comfort of their Salvation thorough Faith and Hope because Hope looks upon the promises of God not as doubtful but as sure and certain Heb. 11.1 2. They are now sayed by Hope or they shall never be saved by Hope for Hope that is seen is not Hope in the world to come they are saved by sight and not by Faith or Hope So that Text 1 Cor. 15.57 is most properly rendered Thanks be unto God that giveth or hath given us the victory through Jesus Christ. For the Saints have already obtained victory over death and the grave in Christ their Head Rom. 8.37 In all things we are more then conquerors And John 16.33 Be of good cheer I have overcome the world So Heb. 10.35 Your confidence hath a great recompence of reward to wit In the present effects which it did produce as inward peace joy c. according to that of the Psalmist Psal. 19.11 In keeping thy statutes there is great reward But 2 if I should grant what he desires that in all these places there were an Heterosis of Tenses for I acknowledge this trope is frequent in Scripture yet this great flourish will amount to nothing unless he had shewn by the circumstances of the Text or the nature of the thing that it must be so expounded here for if men had liberty to feign Enalloges of Numbers Cases and Tenses at their pleasure it were easie to elude the meaning of the plainest Texts § 5. 3 Those words Heb. 11.6 Without Faith it is impossible to please God do not conclude what he would have them to wit That God is not wel-pleased with his Elect in Christ before they do believe for the Apostle speaks there of mens works and actions and not of their persons No man can please God without Faith no not Believers themselves their Religious Services are not pleasing to God unless they are done in Faith for bonum est ex causa integra Now Faith is a principal ingredient in the Saints obedience for if it be not done in Faith it is not done in love Gal. 5 6. And consequently it is not fruit unto God Rom 7.4 Gods wel-pleasedness with his Elect is the immediate effect of the death of Christ for that which raised a partition wall between God and them was the breach of the Law now when the Law was satisfied for their sins this partition was broken down his favor had as free a current as if they had not sinned And therefore the blotting out of our sin and our reconciliation with God is ascribed solely and immediately to the death of Christ as in many other Scriptures so particularly Ephes. 1.6 7. 2.13 14. Col. 1.20 21. 2.13 14. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself he did not onely act towards it as Mr. W. glossed those words in his Sermon but saith the Text he did not impute their sins unto them for whom Christ died The actual blotting out of sin sayes Mr. Perkins doth inseparably depend upon satisfaction for sins and satisfaction with God doth necessarily imply the very real and general abolishment of the guilt and punishment of sin That which makes our persons acceptable to God is the Righteousnes of Jesus Christ but now our actions are not pleasing unless they are conformable to the rule and all necessary circumstances do concur the cheif whereof is
Faith in the propitiation and atonement of Jesus Christ whereby their defects and obliquities are done away § 6. 4 Whereas he addes That it was a poor answer which I gave to Mr. Good That God was well pleased with his Elect whilest unregenerate though not with their unregeneracy 1. As far as it concerns my self I shall subscribe to his censure I am poor but he is rich I am empty but he is full But 2. he may be pleased to take notice that a far richer man then himself in all kinde of learning both Humane and Divine hath given the very same answer unto this question Mr. Pemble distinguisheth between Gods love to our persons and Gods love to our qualities and actions A distinction which sayes he parents are well skilled in who put a difference between the vices and persons of their children those they hate these they love even when for their vices they do chastise their persons The case sayes he is the same between God and the Elect his love to their persons is from everlasting the same nor doth their sinfulness lessen it nor their sanctity increase it because God in loving their persons never considered them otherwise then as most perfectly holy and unblameable in Jesus Christ c. It is a strange inference which he draws from my words That because I said God is well pleased with the persons of his Elect whilest unregenerate that afterwards he is well pleased with their unregeneracy also He might as well impose this absurdity upon the Prophet that because he saith Ezek. 16.8 Thy time to wit of unregeneracy was the time of love Surely not of their unregeneracy but of their persons then unregenerate that therefore the Prophet supposeth that after their Conversion God did love their unregeneracy or that corruption of nature which remained in them Such quibbles are unbeseeming serious Christians § 7. I shall adde but a word to clear up the difference between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons And first we say that the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful which though they are pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight Prov. 5.8 Tit. 1.15 Isai. 1.13 c. Secondly Though as the Orthodox acknowledge the best works of the best men have not in them that Inherent purity and holiness which can stand before God without the mediation of their High Priest yet they may be said to be acceptable and pleasing unto God not onely comparatively because they are better then the works of unregenerate men or then the sinful works of such as are regenerate but absolutely and that two ways 1. Abstractly and in themselves or as they ought to be done and thus Faith Hope Love c. are acceptable to God for they are that spiritual worship and service which God looks for and delights in Joh. 4.23 Micah 6.8 Gal. 5.5 6. Phil. 3.3 And in this respect a meek and a quiet spirit is said to be of great price in the sight of God 1 Pet. 3.4 2. Concretely as they are acted by us or do pass through our hands and so they are acceptable to God as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 Our spiritual sacrifices are made acceptable to God in Jesus Christ or by his taking away the sin and defilement that adheres unto them Our High Priest doth not procure the acceptance of those works which in their whole abstract nature are sinful such as are all our works before Conversion and the fruits of the flesh after Conversion he obtains forgiveness but not acceptance for them But now those works which come from the Spirit of God and are sinful onely through the mixture of our corruptions as sweet water which passeth through a sink these he makes acceptable to the Father by taking away the imperfections and defilements that adhere unto them § 8. The next Scripture which Mr. W. hath brought in by way of objection against himself is Rom. 5.10 When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son To which he answers That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled Against this answer of his I shall offer these Exceptions 1 It offers a manifest violence to the Text to say That we were reconciled is as much as we shall be reconciled when we have performed the terms and conditions required of us 2 If our reconciliation to God did depend upon terms and conditions performed by us then is it not through the death of Christ that we are reconciled unto God we should be more the cause of our reconciliation then Christ is for he that performs a condition to which a benefit is promised doth more to the procuring of it then he that makes or obtains that conditional grant notwithstanding which he is never awhit the near of the benefit unless his own act do concur 3 The Apostle declares That this reconciliation was made when we were enemies Ergo Before our believing or the fulfilling of any condition on our part For Believers are not enemies 4 If his meaning were no more then this that it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will that we are reconciled then this clause when we were enemies would be superfluous and redundant whereas the main emphasis of the Text doth lie therein as is evident from the gradation which the Apostle makes Vers. 6 8 10. 5 The Apostle in 2 Cor. 5.19 affirms That our Saviour did not onely pay the price of our reconciliation but that God did so far accept of or acquiesce therein that upon the payment of it he did not impute our sins unto us i. e. he justified us for the Apostle Rom. 4. defines Justification to be the non-imputation of sin 6 And lastly That which he grants yeelds the matter in question viz. The immediate actual reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ for if Christ by shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtor is free in Law it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid § 9. Secondly To illustrate and confirm his Answer he makes use of Grotius his distinction of three moments or periods of the Will of God 1 at Enmity 2 Appeasable 3 Appeased 1. Before the consideration of the death of Christ God saith he is at enmity with the sinner though not averse from all ways and means of reconciliation 2. After the consideration of the death of Christ and now is the Lord not onely appeasable but doth also
promise that he will be reconciled with sinners upon such terms as he himself shall propose 3. After Intercession on Christs part and Faith on the sinners part and now is God actually reconciled and in friendship with the sinner This Grotian and Vorstian Divinity is monstrous gross which renders God as changable as a fickle Creature and palpably denies his God-like nature scil His Simplicity Eternity Omnisciency Immutability c. Arminius himself was more modest then to affirm a change in the Will of God nay Plato was a more Orthodox Divine in this point who said That the first mover can be moved of none but by himself The Will of God is not inclined or moved by any thing without him unto any of his acts whether Immanent or Transient for that which is the cause of his Will is the cause of himself seeing that his Will is his Essence The death of Christ doth not cause any alteration in the Will of God his Merits are not the cause why God doth love us or will to us the blessings of his Covenant they did not change God ex nolente in volentem ex odio hâ—bente in diligentem as Greevenchovius dreamed And the Reasons are 1 Because God is unchangable he neither ceaseth to will what at any time he intended nor doth he begin to will what he did not always purpose 2 Because no reason can be given of the Will of God Aquinas says well Nullum temporale c. Nothing that hath its being in time can be the cause of that which is eternal for then the effect should be before the cause Now that I may not actum agere I shall desire the Reader to consult what Mr. Owen hath said in answer to this notion of Grâ—tius whereof if Mr. W. had vouchsafed to take any notice he might have seen cause enough to decline from the steps of his admired Grotius § 10. Thirdly he infers That because the Apostle saith Vers. 11. We have now received the atonement or reconciliation Ergo Not before we believed To which I answer 1 He might as well reason that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15.20 Now is Christ risen Ergo He was not risen before he writ that Epistle and from Eph. 2.2 The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief Ergo He did not work in them before 2 If it be referred to our receiving or apprehension by Faith it doth not prove that the reconciliation or atonement was not made before There is a wide difference between the making or obtaining of reconciliation and our receiving of it though we cannot receive or apply it to our selves any otherwise then by Faith yet it follows not That God did not account it unto us before The Typical Sacrifices made a present atonement much more the real see Heb. 9.14 § 11. Fourthly He gives us his opinion concerning the immediate effect of the death of Christ Which saith Mr. Baxter is one of the greatest and noblest questions in our controverted Divinity he that can rightly answer this is a Divine indeed And no doubt but Mr. W. deserves the Bell in his account Let us therefore see what a glorious atcheivement he ascribes unto it It is saith he through the death of Christ that the promise of reconciliation is made by and according to which we are actually reconciled unto God after we do believe to wit at the day of judgement when we have performed that and all other conditions required of us which in sum is as if he had said That the death of Christ procured no certain or immediate effect at all For notwithstanding his death it is possible that none may be saved for things obtained under condition are as to their accomplishment altogether uncertain for the condition may be fulfilled or it may not be fulfilled The utmost which hereby is ascribed to the death of Christ is That he hath obtaâ—ned a salvability for sinners or a way whereby they may become their own saviours which in the old Popish English is That Christ hath merited that we might merit Eternal life or as the Remonstrants have refined the phrase His death hath made God placabilem but not placatum A shift says Pemble devised meerly to uphold the liberty of mans will and universal Redemption Whereunto the abettors of this notion do hie them apace § 12. But against it I shall oppose these considerations 1 The Scripture no where ascribes this effect to the death of Christ That he died to obtain a conditional grant that we by performing the condition might be reconciled to God but to obtain peace and reconciliation it self Daniel doth not say that Messiah shall be cut off to obtain a promise but to make an end of sin c. Chap. 9.24 Nor the Apostle that Christ by the blood of the cross hath obtained a conditional promise of reconciliation but that he hath made peace Col. 1.20 broken down the partition wall Ephes. 2.14 delivered us from the curse Gal. 3.13 And our Saviour in that of Matth. 26.28 which Mr. W. cites doth not say That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise whereby all men may obtain remission but for the remission of the sins of many i. e. of all the Elect. 2 If Christ by his death obtained onely a conditional promise then was his death no more available to the Elect then unto Reprobates no more to Peter then it was to Judas whereas the Scripture shews us That the effects of Christs death are peculiar onely to the Elect. See John 10.15 16 26. 17.9 20. 3 If Christ by his death obtained but a conditional promise then do men more for their Salvation then Christ hath done for he that performs the condition doth more to his Salvation then he that obtained the conditional promise notwithstanding which he might have perished 4 It makes Christ to have died in vain at least without any determinate end in reference unto them for whom he died seeing that notwithstanding his death it was possible that none at all might be saved And thus as Mr. Owen hath noted he is made a Surety of an uncertain Covenant a Purchaser of an Inheritance perhaps never to be enjoyed a Priest sanctifying none by his Sacrifice a thing we would not ascribe to a wiseman in a far more easie undertaking If Mr. W. shall say that Christ is certain that the Elect will perform the condition required we shall demand whether this certainty doth arise from their wills or his will If he say from their wills and his fore-sight of their well using of their natural abilities to fulfil the condition required he shakes hands with Papists and Arminians who make our Election and Redemption to be ex praevisa fide A conceit that hath been confuted over and over if from his own will because he hath purchased Faith for them then he obtained more by his death then a conditional promise § 13. Fifthly
it and declared himself well pleased and satisfied therewith Matth. 3.17 Isa. 42.1 Insomuch that God hath thereupon covenanted and sworn that he will never remember their sins nor be wrath with them any more Isa. 43.25 54.9 10. Fourthly That by this Ransom of his they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 4.4 3.13 Our Adversaries say That he paid the price for their Redemption but with no intent that they should be immediately and absolutely freed which is often boldly affirmed and as slenderly proved But why not immediately and absolutely There is saith Mr. W. a compact and agreement between the Father and the Son when he undertook to be our Surety that his death should not be available for the actual reconciliation of sinners till they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part Sed hoc restat probandum and I am perswaded will till the worlds end Let them shew us this Covenant and Agreement and we are satisfied till this be done we shall think our proofs sufficient and that the force of those Allegations is no whit invalidated by this Crude Assertion I confess I have heard much talk of this Suspensive Covenant but hitherto I have not had the hap to meet with that Author that hath attempted to make it forth though I might justly be excused from the labor of proving the Negative seeing that it lies upon our Adversaries to clear it up That there was such a compact and agreement made between the Father and the Son that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners but onely upon conditions performed by them Yet because I intend not any other Reply and that Mr. W. may see I do not dissent because he hath said and not proved it which in controverted points were ground enough I shall offer him the Reasons which as yet do sway my Judgement to believe the contrary CHAP. XIV Of the Covenant between the Father and the Son concerning the immediate effects of Christs death THe Reasons which perswade me to believe That there was not any Covenant passed between God and Christ to hinder the immediate and actual reconciliation of Gods Elect by his death and to suspend this effect thereof upon terms and conditions to be performed by them but contrariwise that it was the will both of God and of Christ that his death should be available to their immediate and actual Reconciliation and Justification without any condition performed on their part Are as followeth First There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is none Non est Scriptum Ergo There is no such thing hath hitherto been counted a good Argument amongst Christians It is not possible says Damascene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To speak ought of God beside the things which are divinely manifested in the Old and New Testament If there be any such Covenant let our Adversaries shew it and until they do we shall rest securely in the Negative they must pardon us if we yeeld not up our Faith to unwritten Verities Secondly The Covenant made between God and Christ was That upon giving up of himself to death he should purchase a Seed like the Stars of Heaven i. e. All the Elect of God Isa. 53.10 And our Saviour Christ after that he had tasted death to bring many sons unto glory boasts and glories in this atchievement Heb. 2.13 Behold I and the children whom God hath given me Ergo It was the Will of God that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be the children of Christ and the children of wrath at the same time § 2. Thirdly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities then was it his Will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate but it was the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debts and a full satisfaction for our iniquities Ergo. I suppose the Assumption will not be questioned for though the word satisfaction be not used in Scripture yet the thing it self is plainly signified in those phrases of Redemption Atonement Reconciliation and in like manner all those places which declare that Christ died for us and for our sins and offences do imply the same scil That the death of Christ was the payment of our debts and the punishment of our sins that thereby he satisfied the Law for all those wrongs injuries we have done unto it Now the Sequel is evident If God willed that the death of Christ should be a full and satisfactory payment of our demerits then he willed that the discharge procured thereby should be immediate and present for it is contrary to Justice and Equity that a debt when it is payed should be charged either upon the Surety or Principal and therefore though God did will that the other effects of Christs death as it is the meritorious price of Faith Holiness Glory c. should be sub termino or in Diem not Present but Future yet he willed that this effect of it to wit our discharge from sin and the curse should be present and immediate because it implies a contradiction that the same debt should be paid and not paid that it should be discharged and yet justly chargable As when a man that is a Trespasser or any one for him payes a sum of money which is sufficient both for discharge of his trespass as also for the purchase of a peece of Land From the trespass his discharge must be present if the satisfaction be full though the enjoyment of the Land may be in Diem as the Vendee and Purchaser can agree the Case before us is the very same The death of Christ was both a price and a ransom it served both to pay our debts and to procure our happiness he did thereby purchase both our deliverance from sin and death and all those Spiritual Blessings present and future which we stand in need of The discharge of our debts and deliverance from punishment must needs be present and immediate upon the payment of the price though those Spiritual Blessings be not received till a long time after as God and Christ shall see it fit to bestow them on us To this I shall adde a fourth § 3. Fourthly If nothing hindered the reconciliation of the Elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the Will of God that they should be immediately reconciled but nothing hindred their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law Ergo. It was sin alone that made a distance or separation between God and them Isa. 59.2 For which cause it is compared to a cloud or mist Isa. 44.22 to a partition wall Ephes. 2.14 It lay as a block in the way that God could not salva
notwithstanding all that he hath done for us we had been eternally miserable unlesse we had also contributed our owne endeavours How derogatory this is to Christ and contrary to the Scriptures is sufficienâ—ly manâ—fest Ninthly If it were the Will of God that his people should have strong consolations and that their joy should be full then it was his Will that their peace and reconciliation should not depend upon termes and conditions performed by themselves For as was noted before out of Calvin it is impossible that any soule should injoy a firme and settled peace whose confidence towards God is grounded upon conditionall promises and sayes the Apostle our Salvation is by grace to the end that the promise might be sure unto all the seed implying that if it depended never so little upon our works wee could not bee sure thereof and consequently wee must walke in darknesse and see no light § 7. Tenthly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available for the reconciliation of his Elect whilst they live in this world then it was his Will that it should procure for them immediate and actuall reconciliation without the intervention of those conditions supposed to be required of them and the reason of this consequence is because they cannot performe all the conditions required of them till their last breath this being one that they must persevere to the end and the nature of conditionall grants is such that the benefit cannot be had and injoyed till all the conditions are performed So that if the reconciliation of the Elect did depend upon the conditions pretended they should not only not have reconciliation before Faith but not before death which is contrary to innumerable Scriptures which doe declare that the Saints are perfectly justified and so immutably reconciled unto God that nothing shall be able to separate them from his love though their Sanctification be imperfect yet their Justification is as full and perfect as ever it shall be it doth not grow and increase as the other doth but is perfect at first And therefore baptisme which seals unto us the forgivenesse and washing away of all our sins not originall only but actuall also is administred but once in all our life time to shew that our Justification is done all at once at the very first instant wherein the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to us Ezek. 16.8 9. Act. 13.39 1 Joh. 1.7 Col. 2.13 14. § 8. Eleventhly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should certainly and infallibly procure the reconciliation of his Elect then surely it was not the Will of God that it should depend upon terms and conditions on their part because that which depends upon future conditions is as to the event altogether uncertain it is possible it may never be by the non-performance of the condition But this hath been alleadged before Twelfthly If God willed this blessing to his Elect by the death of Christ but conditionally then he willed their Reconciliation and Justification no more then their non-Reconciliation and Condemnation and stood as it were indifferent to either event but doubtlesse his heart was more set upon it then so see John 6.38 39. John 17.21 22 24. The consequence is cleare for if he willed their Justification onely in case they should beleeve and repent then he willed their Damnation in case they doe not beleeve and repent and then it will follow that he willed their Justification no more then their Damnation nay most probably he willed it lesse because we are more prone to Infidelity then we are to Faith and to hardnesse of heart then we are to repentance I adde to this § 9. Thirteenthly If God willed unto men the benefits of Christs death upon any condition to be performed by them it will follow that God foresaw in them an ability to performe some good which Christ hath not merited Conditionall reconciliation necessarily supposeth Free-will For either God willed it unto men upon a possible or impossible condition not upon an impossible condition for that is inconsistent with the Wisdome of God if upon a possible condition the possibility thereof ariseth either from Gods Will or from Mans it is possible either because God will bestow it or because man can performe it Our adversaries cannot mean it in the former sence for God will bestow upon us nothing but what Christ hath purchased and Christ hath purchased nothing save what God hath promised in his Covenant Now Mr. W. denyes that the promise of Faith is any part of the Covenant or any effect of it p. 32. and others that are for this conditional reconciliation look upon it as a ridiculous conceit that God should promise men Salvation upon a condition and that he should work this condition in them and for them so that in the upshot we shall be beholding cheifly to Free Will an opinion so absurd that in all ages it hath been exploded by humble and sober minded Christians it being palpably contrary to the Scriptures which shew that every man by nature is without strength dead in treaspasses and sins that we cannot so much as think a good thought that it is God who worketh in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure If any shal say that God did will that by Christ wee should have Faith and after that reconciliation Though this be granted them it will follow notwithstanding that our reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Christ as Mr. Owen hath invincibly proved in his answer to Baxter p. 34. and then all the controversie will be about Gods order and method in conferring on us the effects of Christs death and whether God doth enable a man to perform good works before his person is reconciled to God Some Reasons for the Negative have been given before § 10. Fourteenthly If God did will that our sins should be accounted unto Christ without any condition on our part then it was his Will that they should be discounted unto us without any condition and the Reason thereof is because the charging and accounting of them unto him necessarily includes our discharge the imputing of our sins to Christ was formally the non-imputing of them unto us Gods accounting of them unto him as hath been shown was a reall discounting of them from us for they could not be accounted or charged upon both without a manifest contradiction in the thing it selfe and in the Justice of God But God willed that our sins should be accounted to and charged upon Christ without any condition performed by us for he actually suffered for them before we were Ergo. § 11. To these Arguments from Scripture I mighr adde many plaine Texts which doe declare that our reconciliation is the actual and immediate effect of Christs death as Col. 1.14 Eph. 1.7 We have redemption not we shall have the forgivenesse or non-imputation
are justified by performing the conditions required of us which in effect makes men their own Saviours as before 5 He recedes very far both from the meaning and expressions of all our Orthodox Writers who do constantly call our Saviour a common person but never that I finde the exemplary cause of our Justification I shall onely refer the Reader to what his Grand-father Parker hath written of this matter who hath copiously and learnedly proved both from Scripture and the Fathers That Christ no less then the first Adam was made a common person by the Ordination of God and his own voluntary undertaking who took our sins upon him as if they had been his own and for the same made full satisfaction to Divine Justice and consequently received as full a discharge in our behalf 6 This expression of his savors rankly both of Pelagianism and Socinianism The Pelagians as they made the first Adam a meer pattern and example in communicating sin to his posterity so they made the second Adam but the pattern and example of our reconciliation Those words 2 Cor. 5.18 Who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ they expounded by his Doctrine and by his Example i. e. By our obedience to his Doctrine and by imitatâ—ng his example The Socinians do speak the same Language Christus ideo servator noster dicitur quod salutis viam nobis annunciavit quod salutis viam nobis confirmavit miraculorum patratione sanguinis effusione resurrectione à mortuis quod vitae exemplo viam salutis nobis ostendit Christ is therefore called a Saviour because by his Life and Doctrine he hath shewed us the way of Salvation and by his Miracles and Sufferings hath confirmed the same I am sorry to hear the Language of Ashdod from the mouth of a Protestant Minister § 4. The excuse which he gives for calling our Saviour the exemplary cause of our Justification rather then a common person is both fallacious and impertinent I use saith he the term of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents as the Parliament of the Commonwealth 1. It is fallacious dealing under pretence of giving a more significant term to leave out that wherein the force of the Argument lay He seems to intimate that the phrases are of equal latitude that an exemplary cause doth express as much as a common person which is cleerly false for the act of the Exemplar is not the act of the Imitator as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents which in Law is accounted as if it had been done by them Parents and Superiors are examples to their Children and Inferiors they are not common persons as Adam was to all his posterity In whose loyns saith the Apostle we all sinned and in this respect he is made a figure of Christ Rom. 5.14 Whose Righteousness is accounted unto them for whom he died as Adams sin was accounted unto us when as yet we were not 2. It is impertinent for though Christ be not the effect of them whom he represents yet that hinders not but that his discharge was theirs no less then if he had been chosen by them I can see no reason why the act of God constituting and appointing his Son to be the Head Surety and Common Person to all his Elect should not be as effectual for the communication of his benefits to them as their own choice and election We did not chuse Adam to be our common person and yet his sin was imputed to us so though we did not chuse the Lord Jesus to stand in our stead that is no reason why his Righteousness and Satisfaction should not be accounted ours § 5. The instances he hath brought from our Personal Resurrection and Inherent Sanctification to render this Argument absurd have not the least force to conclude against the efficacy of Christs Satisfaction for our immediate discharge from sin and wrath It doth not follow that because we did not personally rise with Christ and were not inherently sanctified in his Sanctification Ergo. We had not in his Resurrection an actual discharge from the guilt of sin there is not the like reason for these For to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt or satisfaction to the Law of God but our personal resurrection necessarily supposeth both our life and death Again our Inherent Sanctification cannot be without our personal existence and the use of those means which God hath appointed for that end but our Justification is wrought without us and for us Though Christ hath fully merited our Sanctification and Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be crucified with him and to be risen with Christ as well as our Justification yet it is not necessary that these benefits should be communicated to us at the same time and in the same manner It is no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Resurrection though we are not risen as to say Christ hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for as hath been shewn to say a debt is discharged and yet that it is justly chargable implies a contradiction Let the Reader judge whether the Assertion that follows be not much more confident then solid No man living can shew any reason of difference as if he were master of as much Reason as all men living why we may not as justly infer that our Resurrection is passed already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justication is passed before we believe because we are justified in Christ. Enough hath been said to evict the disproportion of these consequences § 6. 2. His next distinction is That Justification is either Causal and Virtual or Actual and Formal We were saith he causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Our Protestant Divines do generally place the formale of Justification in the non-imputation of sin Now if our sins were formally imputed unto Christ even to a full Satisfaction they could not formally be imputed unto us also unless a debt discharged by a Surety can be justly reckoned unto him that did first contract it It is true a debt may be imputed both to Principal and Surety before it be discharged but after to neither It is granted by all Orthodox Writers That our Saviour by giving himself to death made full satisfaction to the utmost farthing for all the sins or debts of Gods Elect. Now I say the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor unless we speak of an outward formality such as is by an Acquittance which serves but either against the unfaithfulness of the creditor who otherwise would deny the payment or else against the ignorance of the debtor who being not at the payment might still look upon himself as a debtor and lyable
to all the consequences of his debts In this sence our Formal Justification is by the gracious sentence of the Gospel terminated upon our Consciences but otherwise intrinsecally and formally the payment of our debt is our real discharge I shall grant him That the death of Christ doth justifie us onely virtually but yet I affirm That the satisfaction in his death being performed and accepted for us doth justifie us formally for the actual payment of a debt is that which formally makes him that was the debtor no debtor And therefore Christ dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonima's in Scripture phrase Rom. 5.8 9 10. Object But against this some have alledged that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 where he saith That Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the Righteousness of God in him Whence they would infer That the laying of our sins on Christ is onely an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Whereunto we Answer 1 That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause As when it is said That light is let in that darkness might be expelled where the immission of light is formally the expulsion of darkness 2 Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his Righteousness to us do differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God which was when God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them before the word of Reconciliation was given and therefore before they believed Vers. 19. 3 Though the imputation of our sin to Christ and so the non-imputation thereof to us have an antecedency in respect of imputation of Righteousness to us yet it is of nature onely and not of time For though it be objected That we were not then and therefore Righteousness could not be imputed unto us yet it follows not They might as well object Our sins were not then Ergo They could not be imputed unto Christ whereas in this business of Justification God calleth things that are not as though they were But if Mr. W. had shewn what it is that formally justifies us besides the satisfaction made in Christs death somewhat more might have been spoken to it § 7. The close of this Paragraph is such a dirty puddle that I intended to have stept over it in silence seeing it is so hard to touch pitch or pollution and not be defiled with it but yet for their sakes that do not know 〈◊〉 I shall stay the Reader a little whilest I wash off that dirt which he hath thrown upon me and others They are credulous souls I will assure you that will be drawn by such decoyes as these into Schism and Faction to the hardning and discomforting of more hearts in one hour then the Opinion it self should it obtain will do good to while the world stands I dare not allow my self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to pay him in his own coyn having perswaded my heart to follow better examples even his who when he was reviled reviled not again 1 Pet. 2.23 And theirs who being reproached returned blessing 1 Cor. 4.12 In these few words there are a heap of slanders packt together both against my self and others and which is more grievous to be born against the truths and ways of God which we adhere to 1. They that do embrace this Doctrine which I have taught are aspersed with credulity and levity I do verily believe there is not one of my charge but is able to say as the Samaritans John 4.42 We believe not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves c. I dare say they are better setled then to be shaken with the sophistry of this Assailant I am sure both they and many more will bear me witness how frequently I do admonish them of taking up matters of Faith upon trust and credit it being Idolatry in a high degree to give the most Spiritual Worship of God viz. Our Faith to a weak and sinful man He that believes a truth upon a Humane account is no better Christian then he that doth believe a lie Let the prudent judge whether they are not more justly obnoxious to this censure of abusing the credulity of simple souls who will not endure that their hearers should bring their Doctrines to the touchstone The tyranny and usurpation of the Popish Priests is far more excusable then the affected domination of some of ours for they believe that their Church is infallible and cannot erre ours confess that they are fallible and may erre and yet expect subscription to their Dictates no less then to the Canon it self It is held a piaculum to question or debate what ever they say 2. It is but an unhandsome character he hath given my Arguments which he calls decoyes The Apostle I take it hath Englished his French Eph. 4.14 The sleight of men who lie in wait to deceive I dare say he knows me better then in cold blood to accuse me of driving on such a devillish trade as wittingly to deceive mens precious souls And therefore I shall call in no other Compurgator then his own Conscience § 8. As for his charge of Schisme and Faction I am not carefull to answer it being the usuall foam of passionate men who when they want Arguments to convince fall to downright railing Schisme sayes a learned man in the common manage of the word is a meer Theologicall Scar-crow wherewith they who uphold a party in Religion seek to fright away others from enquiring into and closing with that which they doe oppose Both this and the other are most frequently in their mouthes who are deepest in the guilt that is imported by them Ahab by his sins brought down Plagues and Judgements upon Israel yet he cals Elijah the troubler of Israel 1 King 18.17 Athalia was the cheifest Traytor and yet she was the first that cryed out Treason 2 King 11.14 Tertullus was the Orator of the tumult yet he inveighs against Paul as a Ring leader of Sedition Act. 24.5 6. the Church of Rome which hath fallen from the purity of the Catholique Faith brands them for Schismaticks who refuse to continue in the same Apostasie Amongst our selves the late Innovators aspersed all those with Faction and Schisme who would not prostitute their Consciences to the Wils of men and to this day ignorant and prophane persons think all them to be Factious and Schismaticks who live more strictly and religiously then themselves I must needs say they are lesse to be blamed seeing Professors and Ministers do give them such an evill example § 9. I confesse though in common use Schisme and
1 he blames the Proposition For sayes he though it were supposed that we are in Covenant before Faith yet it will not follow That we are justified His Reason is Because the blessings of the Covenant have an order and dependance one upon another and are enjoyed successively one after another But by his favor the Sequel is not invalidated by this Reason for though a man be not sanctified and glorified before Faith yet if he be in Covenant with God i. e. One of the Elect to whom the Grace of the New Covenant appertains he is certainly justified For 1 God from all eternity did will not to punish his Elect ones which as hath been shewn is real Justification it being forgiveness in the heart of God Or 2 taking it for an effect of his Will Justification is the first benefit that doth accrew to us by the death of Christ. God hath promised from thence forth to remember the sins of his people no more Isa. 43.25 54.9 and in Ezek. 36.25 He first promiseth to cleanse us from all our filthiness which must be meant of our Justification for by Sanctification our inherent filthiness is not perfectly cleansed in this life and then to give us a new heart And Chap. 16. he first sayes unto the Soul Live which is the sentence of Justification and then he adorns it with the precious gifts of his holy Spirit It is sufficiently known That the generality of our Protestant Divines in comparing the blessings of the Covenant have given the precedency to Justification some have ascribed to it a priority of time but all of Nature before the rest Perperà m absurde prorsus inter effecta Sanctificationis numeratur Justificatio quae illam natura praecedit c. Justification sayes Tilenus is most absurdly made an effect or consequent of Sanctification which in nature doth go before it A man cannot be sanctified until he is first justified for the tree must be good before it can bring forth good fruit Bishop Downham accounts it a gross error to say That Sanctification goes before Justification For sayes he Sanctification is the end and fruit c. So that if they have right to any benefit of the Covenant before Faith it must be to Justification for Faith is a part of Sanctification and the same thing cannot be before it self § 3. 2 He denies the Assumption viz. That we are in Covenant with God or that we have any right and title to any blessing of the Covenant before we believe But before he will give his Reasons for the Negative he is willing to hear mine for the Affirmative This seeming civility ushers in a notorious slander That I was so obstreperous in our Conference that I would not give him a fair hearing which hath been sufficiently disproved in another place nay his own mouth did acquit me in the close of that discourse before I belive a thousand witnesses I wonder though his Conscience was asleep when this fell from his Pen that his memory should fail him Me thinks he should have been more tender of his own reputation then to contradict himself though he had a desire to blast mine but as if it were not enough to mis-report my actions he takes upon him the office of God to judge my heart I believe sayes he he is resolved to give it unto no body else whiles the judgement of the cause must be left to the people Yes to himself or any one else when I have an occasion for the like essay I am sure he hath not found me heretofore of so morose a spirit as not to weigh and yeeld unto better reason he is no fit champion to defend the Faith who is so much a stranger to the rules of Charity which thinketh no evil but hopes the best I confess I am yet to seek for the Reason of his next clause whilest the judgement of the cause must be left to the people One would think that he who leaves the judgement of his cause unto the people should be most willing they should have a fair hearing of whatsoever can be said either pro or con or else he cannot expect their Votes should be for him The people are apt to think he hath the better cause whose mouth is stopt But perhaps it sticks in his stomack That in our Conference I desired the people to weigh and judge of some interpretations of Scripture which were given by him It was far from my thoughts to refer the decision of the Question unto most voices either of Ministers or people The Judgement desired was that of private discretion and not of publick determination though the latter ought not to be usurped by Minâ—sters whose Reasons and not their Votes must satisfie mens Consciences yet the former ought not to be denied to the meanest Christians who are required to judge for themselves to prove and try the Doctrines which are brought unto them Now why this expression should be faulted I see no cause unless men would have the people to content themselves with an implicite Faith such as the Romanists do allow their disciples who use them as Babes which must swallow whatsoever their Nurses do put into their mouths The Church of Christ saith Optatus is rationabilis she hath the use both of Natural and Supernatural Reason Did Christians more generally see with their own eyes make use of that Light and Reason which God hath given them they would never acquiesce in many of those Dictates which are imposed upon them will any man that hath a spark of Reason beleeve that I am doth signifie I will bee § 4. Well now he hath heard my Reason That we are in Covenant or have a right and title to the blessings of the Covenant before we beleeve because some benefits of the Covenant to wit the Spirit which workes Faith is given us before we beleeve What hath he to say against it 1. He undertakes to explaine that which is plain enough the word Give as that it is taken 1 for constituting or appointing and 2 for the actual collating of a benefit so as that it is received and possessed by him to whom it is given 2. He tels us of sundry ways how the Spirit is said to be given 1 Essentially 2 Personally 3 Operatively All which is nothing at all to the matter in hand but serves meerly to raise a dust to blind the unwary Reader The termes need neither distinction nor explication being easie enough to be understood by the weakest capacity When we say That the Spirit which works Faith is given us before wee beleeve none can well imagine that we meant it of Gods purpose or decree to give the Spirit but of the actuall sending or bestowing of him nor yet of an Essentiall or Personal giving of the Spirit so as to be Hypostatically united to us as the God-head of the Son is to the Humane nature though some godly