if he be ignorant of this matter of fact let not his ignorance make him boldly deny it before he know what evidence there is for the Truth of it We give him these two Arguments to prove the Truth of this matter of fact that Pelagius denyed universal Redemption 1. It is known and acknowledged by all who have any understanding of these matters and our Author himself knows it That Pelagius denyed Original sin from whence it follows by necessary Consequence that he must needs also deny Universal Redemption of all Mankind For Infants that dye in their Infancy before they commit any actual sin are a considerable part of Mankind the Infants who from the beginning of the World have dyed and who daily do dy and hereafter will be dying to the Worlds end and that both within and without the Church before they commit any actual sin will make up a vast number even many Millions of the race of Mankind But Pelagius denyed that these Infants who so dye in their Infancy have any sin either Original or Actual to be redeemed from and therefore he must needs deny also that they were Redeemed and consequently he must needs deny universal Redemption of all Mankind Where there is no manner of sin there is no manner of punishment due for sin and consequently no room for Redemption by the Blood and Death of Christ either from sin or punishment But Pelagius denied that Infants who dy in their Infancy have any manner of sin or that any manner of punishment is due to them for their sin Therefore Pelagius denyed that such Infants are Redeemed by the Blood and Death of Christ either from sin or punishment and consequently he denied universal Redemption 2. Our Second Argument to prove the truth of this matter of Fact is from the testimony of Augustin who is a very competent witness because he lived at the same time with Pelagius and wrote against him and confuted his Errors and Heresies Now Augustin in his writings against Pelagius and his Disciples testifies plainly that they denyed universal Redemption on the account aforesaid For thus he writes Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum lib. 2. ad Bonifacium cap. 2. Manichaei dicunt Deum bonum non omnium naturarum esse creatorem Pelagiani dicunt Deum non esse omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem salvatorem liberatorem Catholica utrosque redarguit c. The Manicheans say That the good God is not the Creator of all natures The Pelagians say That God is not the Purifier the Saviour the Deliverer or Redeemer of all Ages among men But the Catholick Church refutes them both defending both against the Manichaeans the Creature of God least any nature should be denyed to be made by him and also against the Pelagians that the human nature which is lost in all Ages might be sought out and saved Again the same Augustin in several other of his Books proves against the Pelagians from 2 Cor. 5.14 both that all mankind even Infants who dy in their Infancy Lib. 20. de Civit. dei cap. 6. contra Julian lib. 6. cap. 4. are guilty of Original sin and also that in some sense all are Redeemed by the death of Christ In the Second Book of his imperfect Work against Julian a Pelagian Bishop Chap. 28. having alledged 2 Cor. 5.14 15. We thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead And that he died for all c. He adds Unde colligitur quod dicit Apostolus ergo omnes mortui sunt pro omnibus mortuus est Dic apertè mortui parvuli non sunt qui peccatum nullum habem morte pro se Christi in quâ baptizentur non opus habent Jam dic evidenter quod latenter sentis quoniam saâ—is prodis tuâ disputatione quod sentis From which words we gather or inferr for what the Apostle saith Therefore all are dead and he Christ died for them all say plainly Infanâ—s are not dead who have no sin They have no need of the death of Christ for them into which they should be baptized Now speak out evidently that which thou thinkest secretly for thou do'st sufficiently discover by thy Disputation what it is that thou thinkest By this and the forgoing passage of Augustin it is very evident that the Pelagians first denied that Infants had any Original sin Secondly That Christ died for Infants to Redeem them either from sin or punishment of sin For though they declined to speak out and say plainly that Christ died not for Infants yet they really believed and held it for a truth that he did not dy for Infants to Redeem them because they were not guilty of any evil either of sin or punishment from which they could be Redeemed By these two Arguments our Author and others may plainly see that the Pelagians denied universal Redemption by the blood-shedding and death of Christ And this being so how is it possible that we should be middle-way-men who hold universal Redemption and yet that our cause should be Coincident with that of Pelagius who denied universal Redemption Surely our Author cannot think both these things to be true of us without supposing us to believe both parts of a contradiction at once But whatever he himself may be able to do as to believing of contradictions he is greatly mistaken if he think that we have so strong a Faith or so wide a Swallow For we that know our selves much better than he doth declare sincerely that we were never Masters of such a Faith as can believe known contradictions and that we could never make both ends of a contradiction meet so as to be able to swallow them down both at once Either then our Author knew that the Pelagians deny Original sin and universal Redemption or he knew it not if he knew that they deny both how can he be excused from lying against his Conscience in telling the World in Print such a known untruth and contradictious falshood that we are Middle-way-men and that our cause is Coincident with that of Pelagius that is that we are for the middle-way and the extreme way for the middle-way and not for the middle-way at the same time But if he knew not what the cause of Pelagius was and is with what Faith and Conscience could he say that our cause is Coincident or is the same with the cause of Pelagius Is it lawful for him and his judicious Observers to defame the Ministers of Christ and to charge them with Pelagian Heresie and Confederacy with Pelagian Hereticks when they do not well know what the Pelagian Heresie was Hath our Author a priviledge boldly to affirm what he doth not know nor understand And is he fit to inform the people of that which he is ignorant of and wherein he needs to be informed himself We expect the People for whose Information he pretends to write will be more just and reasonable than to believe the Calumnies
him occasion to speak there of God's Law according to which he glorifies or damns men eternally and not of the Gospel-law according to which he either justifies or not justifies Men. But 2. We say that the Doctor 's Judgment was the same as to both to wit as to Justification as well as to Glorification and that 1. Because in his Answer to the foresaid Arminian Book called The Synod of Dort and Arles reduced to Practice Pag. 16. these are his express Words We say that Pardon of Sin and Salvation of Souls are benefits purchased by the death of Christ to be enjoyed by men but how not absolutely but conditionally to wit in case and onely in case they believe And Pag. 28. Men are called upon to believe and promised that upon their Faith they shall obtain the grace of remission of sins and Salvation and these graces may be said to be offered unto all upon condition of Faith And Pag. 189. The Promises assured by Baptism according to the Rule of Gods word I find to be of two sorts Some are of benefits procured unto us by Christ which are to be conferred on us conditionally they of this first sort are Justification and Salvation And Pag. 190. Justification and Salvation is promised in the Word and assured in the Sacraments upon performance of a condition on mans part Now the condition of Justification and Salvation we all acknowledge to be Faith And in his other Book against Hoard Some Benefits saith the Doctor are bestowed upon man only conditionally though for Christs sake and they are the pardon of sin and salvation of the Soul Twiss against Hoard p. 154. and these God doth conferr onely upon the condition of Faith and Repentance All these are the Doctor 's own express Words by which it plainly appears that his Judgment was the same with respect both to Justification and Glorification and that he held that God dispenseth to us both these benefits for Christs sake according to a Law 2. We say that the Doctor 's Judgment was the same as to both because there is the like reason for both and the Doctor 's own Argument holds for the Law of Justification as strongly as for the Law of Glorification since God hath as much constituted and ordained that all penitent Believers and none of ripe years but penitent Believers shall be justified as that all penitent persevering Believers and no others shall be glorified As it is written John 3.18 He that believeth on Christ the Son of God is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already Acts 3.19 26.18 because he hath not believed in the name of the onely begotten Son of God Luke 13.3 5. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish Acts 2.38 Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins Acts 13.39 By him all that believe are justified c. Rom. 3.25 God hath set him forth to be a propitation through faith in his Blood Rom. 4.24 It shall be imputed to us if we believe These Testimonies of Holy Writ do as certainly and evidently shew that God proceeds according to a stated Rule and standing Law of his own making in Justifying or not Justifying Men as any other Testimonies do shew that he proceeds according to a stated Rule and standing Law in Glorifying or not Glorifying Men. 3. We Answer that our wise Accuser in the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th Pages of his Letter seems plainly to be as much against God's proceeding according to a Law in Glorifying Men or not Glorifying them at death as he is against God's proceeding according to a Law in Justifying them or not Justifying them before death Otherwise we would fain know what he means by saying that the Doctrine of Conditions Qualifications and Rectoral Government and the distribution of Rewards and Punishments according to the new Law of Grace will make but an uneasie Bed to a dying Man's Conscience and will leave him in a very bad condition at present and in dread of worse when he is feeling in his last Agonies that the wages of sin is death if he cannot by faith add the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. We profess we cannot see what our Authour should design by this passage but to reflect upon us as Subverters of the true Grounds of Christian Comfort and as driving People to despair by our Doctrine of God's being a Governour and Judge who distributes eternal Rewards and Punishments unto Men See Rev. 11.18 who live in the visible Church according to the Rule of the Evangelical Law and as he finds them to be qualified through Grace or not qualified to have performed the Condition or not to have performed the Condition to have complyed with the terms of the Evangelical Law or not to have complyed with them We say we cannot see what other design he should have therein but thus to reflect upon us And if this was really his design then he denies that God proceeds according to a Law as well in Glorifying or not glorifying as in Justifying or not Justifying Men And therein he opposes Dr. Twiss and all our other Divines that he knevv of as well as us And further upon that Principle that there is no such stated Rule and known standing Law according to vvhich God hath assured us that he vvill either give eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord or inflict eternal death We chalenge our Authour to shevv us hovv in an ordinary vvay vvithout a Miracle the dying disconsolate Man can be assured by Faith that God for Christs sake will give eternal life to him in particular and not inflict upon him eternal death for his Sins For if God have not revealed in his vvritten Word to Men that through Christ he vvill give eternal life unto all penitent Believers and consequently to that dying Man in particular if he be really a true penitent Believer We say if God hath not revealed this in his vvritten Word but kept it secret vvithin himself as a thing vvhich he vvill give arbitrarily as he pleaseth without regard to any stated Rule or knovvn Lavv hovv is it possible for the poor dying Man vvithout an immediate extraordinary Revelation to knovv but that eternal death vvhich he knovvs he hath deserved and not eternal life vvhich he cannot possibly deserve shall be his everlasting portion What depends upon the meer arbitrary will and pleasure of God can never be knovvn by Man unless God reveal it either by his vvritten Word alone or by his Word and Spirit conjunct or by his Spirit immediately vvithout the Word But the poor disconsolate Man can have no hopes that God will reveal it to him by his Written Word alone or by his Written Word and
necessary in order to a true participation of the Righteousness of Christ and therefore to communion with Christ Mark 1.4 15. Lake 13.3 5. whereby being turned from sin and the World through the change of our Mind and Will we may be converted unto Christ and close united unto him and to the end we may obtain Remission of sins in him and from him and may be cloathed with his Righteousness and Holiness 1. Here we see that Zanchy held Repentance to be antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining of Remission of sins through the Righteousness of Christ 2. That by Repentance we are turned from sin and the world and changed in our Mind and Will From which Premisses this Conclusion necessarily follows that before we be Justified and our sins forgiven there must be a real change in us and our Minds and Wills must be turned from sin and the World This is a hard saying to those who would have their Justification and pardon and likewise their sin and the World altogether But though it be hard it is true and good and that not meerly because Zanchy saies so but because he proves it by the plain Word of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived Mark 1.4 15. Luke 13.3 5. And if we may believe the same Zanchy this is not only true and good Law but it is likewise true and good Gospel For says he de Evangelio juxta significationem in Ecclesiâ receptam usitatamque credimus nihil aliud esse quà m c. Concerning the Gospel according to the signification received and commonly used in the Church Zanch. de Relig. Christ Vol. 3. p. 509. we believe that it is nothing but an Heavenly Doctrine concerning Christ c. to wit that Mankind is redeemed by the Death of Christ so that free Remission of all sins is prepared for or is ready for all Men modo resipiscant c. so that or on condition that they repent and believe in Jesus Christ These words of Zanchy are so plain they need no Commentary to make them plainer We wish our Authour do not himself despise Zanchy for their sake since in those few words he hath comprehended the whole Summ of the new Gospel so called which is a good deal above Sixteen Hundred years old Zanchy in the same place says Tria sunt Evangelii capita quae a nobis exiguntur ut praestemus poenitentia in deum c. There are three heads or principal parts of the Gospel which we are required to do Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a studious care to observe whatsoever Christ hath commanded And again The Gospel saith he requires only these three things That being touched with a serious grief for all the sins of our whole Life we desire from the heart that our mind and all our affections may be changed and renewed by God unto an obedient complyance with his Divine Will And that this may be done that we ask it of God by Prayer and use our own endeavours in order to the effecting of it Then that embracing Christ with a true Faith c. In all this it is evident that Zanchy requires something else besides Faith to be done by us in order to our obtaining Justification and pardon of Sin as also declares that after we are justified we must endeavour to do all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded Yea he saith that not only the Law of God but the Gospel of Christ requireth all these things And elsewhere in his Miscellanies he says That if after Justification the Saints fall into wilful sins against Knowledge and Conscience they must renew their Faith and Repentance and return unto the Lord and to their Obedience or else they cannot be saved but are undone for ever To Zanchy we may add the Testimony of Musculus that Holy and Learned Divine in whom God's special care of his faithful Servants appeared in an extraordinary manner but because it is so notorious that Musculus is for us that we cannot think our Authour is so ignorant of matters of fact as not to know it we shall quote but one short passage out of him Musc Loc. Commun de Remiss peccat Sect. 6. Discernendum est inter eam gratiam Dei quae nullas habet adjectas conditiones eam quae conditionaliter confertur ad quem modum peccatorum nobis remissio contingit We must distinguish between that Grace of God which hath no conditions annexed to it and that which is given conditionally after which manner we obtain the remission of sins Sharpius also gives in his Testimony for us in the matter we are treating of See his Book of Justification written in the Year 1609. Where page 98 he says in foedere gratiae duo sunt 1. Substantia c. Sharpii Tract de Justif edit Genev. 1618. There are two things in the Covenant of Grace 1. The substance of the Covenant which is that Righteousness and Salvation is given unto the Church through Christ The 2d Is the Condition annexed to the Covenant if the Members of the Church believe And 172 The promise of Eternal Life is otherwise conditional than by the perfect fulfilling of the Law For it is said he that believeth shall be saved Acts 16.31 Mark 16.16 and page 174. Licet ista sint conditio sine qua non non tamen salutem efficiunt Although these things to wit Love and Holyness and Continuance therein are a condition without which we are not saved yet they are not the efficient cause of Salvation And page 177 178 We grant it follows from Rom. 10.10 That Confession of Christ with the mouth is necessary to Salvation because by this way and means we must go to Salvation or to Heaven page 207. Good Works are necessary that we may escape Temporal and Eternal punishments which God threatens to inflict upon the Transgressors of his Law Rom. 8.13 1 Thess 4.5 6. page 69. The conditions of the promises are Faith Repentance Patience c. Finally page iii. God doth not forgive sins but to the penitent though not for their Repentance but for the merit of Christ And a little after spiritualis vita c. As Spiritual Life is given us freely in Christ by Faith only so it is preserved and cherished by Prayer Repentance and other Spiritual Exercises The professors of Leyden in their Synopsis of purer Divinity first published in the Year 1624 taught the same Doctrine Witness what they write in the said Book Synops purior Theol. edit 3. Lugduni Batav 1642. p. 271. Thes 29. Non omnem conditionem negamus in Evangelto N. Test requiri ad salutem Requiritur enim conditio fidei novae obedientiae quae ubique urgetur c. We do not deny that any condition is required unto Salvation in the Gospel and New Testament For there is required the condition of Faith and new Obedience which is every where urged But these
endeavour to make out from several passages in the Letter it self As 1. In Page 10. All that he saith against that Book is this There are many Expressions in it that we generally dislike Now this he might safely say and yet not disown any but in his heart believe every Doctrinal point in it There are many precious Truths ill expressed by some very Orthodox Divines and in such a case we may well say that we dislike the way of expression tho' we dearly love the Truth so expressed We find that the Reverend and pious Mr. Rutherford in a Fast Sermon preached before the House of Commons in the Year 1643. on Dan. 6.26 saith Page 32. That the Antinomian is the Golden white Devil a Spirit of Hell cloathed with all Heaven and the Notions of Free Grace It seems the Devil of Antinomianism did not appear white enough to our Authour in Dr. Crisps Book but what if he had appeared in a better and whiter Dress what if the Antinomianism had been better expressed how would the Authour of the Letter have liked it then Truly for any thing he hath here said to the contrary he might have liked it well enough It is true in the end of that Paragraph he says That Error is often and unhappily opposed by Error under Truths name And we confess he may possibly apply one part of that passage unto Dr. Crisps Book and we would hope that he thereby meant that indeed there are Errours in Dr. Crisps Book but withal we must say that such an acknowledgment of Errour to be in that Book is too obscure to be discerned by the ordinary people that want judgment and for whose use he saith he wrote his Book and that because it is a general expression which is true enough in it self without respect to Dr. Crisps Book and whether it be applied thereunto or not 2. In Page 26. he sayes We justly complain that in their opposing of true Antinomian Errours and particularly the alledged Tenents of Dr. Crisp they hint that there is a Party of c. Now pray mark how warily he expresseth himself and how tender he seems to be of the credit of that Book He doth not say true Antinomian Errors and particularly the Tenents of Dr. Crisp for then indeed he had plainly confessed that there are true Antinomian Errours in the Book but he only saith the alledged Tenents of that Doctor by which Word Alledged he may make some People believe that he never meant there were any true Antinomian Errours in that Drs. Book but that true Antinomian Errours are alledged out of it by Mr. Williams and others and that very wrongfully as Mr. Chancey pretends 3. In Page 24. he says It is not yet called in question by any but that there is a decreed Justification from Eternity Here may be another Juggle for these words there is a decreed Justification from Eternity are capable of the Antinomian sense nay more they are not fairly capable of any other sense to understand them properly For a decreed Justification is not the Decree it self but the object or effect of the Decree The Decree it self is from Eternity but the object and effect of the Decree is in time as Dr. Twiss tells us and even common sense and reason may assure us of it For the Decree being from Eternity and the object and effect of the Decree being after the Decree it cannot be from Eternity too and if it be not from Eternity it must be in time And yet the Letter saith that a decreed Justification though it be the object or effect of the Decree is from Eternity which is the very Errour of the Antinomians who ignorantly confound the object and effect of the Decree with the Decree it self We are sure the Words of the Letter bear this sense yet we will not positively affirm that he meant them in this sense because we would hope though he hath said expresly that there is a decreed Justification from Eternity that yet he onely meant and would have said that there is a Decree of Justification from Eternity If any now should object on his behalf and say the that foresaid words not only may but must be understood of the Eternity of the Decree it self and cannot be understood of the Eternity of the decreed Justification which is the effect of the Decree because of the distinction which follows of a virtual and actual Justification We can easily answer that if we our selves were true Antinomians and durst so far dissemble as sometimes to seem not to be Antinomians we could make the opinion of Justifications actual existence from Eternity consist well enough with the distinction of vertual and actual Justification mentioned in the Letter For we would understand it with respect to manifestation Thus 1. Justification which actually existed from Eternity was virtually manifested in and by the Death and Resurrection of Christ 2. It is actually manifested and is actual in manifestation when we lay hold on and plead Redemption in Christs Blood by Faith And thus by a different use of Words a Man void of the fear of God might juggle and at different times and upon different occasions might please two contrary Parties and make them both believe that he were of their Judgment We do not say that our Authour doth so only we wish that he had not expressed himself so ambiguously but that with more plainness and simplicity he had declared himself against those Antinomian Errours Thus he had effectually removed all grounds of suspecting him any more whereas as he hath carried the matter in general doubtful expressions it may be to avoid the displeasure of some of his good Friends instead of fully clearing himself he hath left ground to suspect him still that if he be not a real Antinomian he is at least a Favourer of them and one that would keep up his Interest amongst them and therefore in speaking of Dr. Crisps Book all that he sayes is that he likes not his way of expressing himself and that there are true Antinomian Errours alledged out of it but not that there are any really in it as also he grants to the Antinomians that there is a decreed Justification from Eternity which is as much as they desire for decreed Justification is distinct from and is the object and effect of the Decree And so if Justification as it is the object and effect of the Decree be from Eternity then the Antinomians and he are agreed in that matter and both of them hold that not onely the Decree of Justification as of all other things is from Eternity but that Justification it self is from Eternity We do not see how Men of their Principles can gather any other sence from his Words But whether he used such Words on purpose to make them conceive good hopes of him we shall neither affirm nor deny but leave it to his own Conscience And as the Antinomians may hope well of him so will
Spirit together because according to the Principle aforesaid the Written Word is supposed to say nothing at all of that matter Therefore if ever it be Revealed to the Man and so if ever he be comforted in this World it must be by the Spirit without the Word And then all the poor disconsolate Mans ground of Comfort must be reduced to this That God will reveal it to him by his Spirit immediately without the Written Word But then we demand how our Authour will be able to assure the poor disconsolate dying Man that God will really do so that God will reveal it to him by his Spirit immediately without the Written Word For that immediate extraordinary Revelation being a thing that depends also upon Gods Arbitrary Free Will he may do it or not do it as he pleaseth and if God may freely not do it how can our Authour ever assure the Man that he will do it That is that he will by his Spirit immediately and extraordinarily reveal to him without the Written Word that he shall have Eternal Life and not Eternal Death for his Portion But now if our Authour should say that God hath given unto Man a Promise in his Written Word to ground his Faith upon though he hath not given a stated Rule and standing positive Law according to which he will proceed with Man at Death and Judgment We would readily reply thus Either the Promise in the Written Word made to the dying disconsolate Man is an absolute Promise that God for Christ's sake will give him Eternal Life however it be with him whether he be converted or unconverted penitent or impenitent believer or unbeliever And we are sure there is no such promise in the Bible and to tell him of such a Promise would be at once to belie God and to delude the poor Man Or 2. It is a conditional Promise That God for Christ's sake will give him Eternal Life If through Grace he unfeignedly repent of all his sins and believe on Christ with a lively effectual Faith a Faith working by Love which he is bound to do under the pain of Eternal Death If this be the Promise that the poor dying Man must ground his Faith upon that God for Christ's sake will give him Eternal Life then this is the very thing which Dr. Twisse and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds in dispensing to his People the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant such as Justification and Glorification are And so our Authour comes over into our Camp which he must do at last and confess if not to us at least to God that he hath grosly misrepresented and falsly accused Christ's faithful Ministers and hath endeavoured to delude the People and to render the Ministers odious to the People and thereby to hinder the success of their Ministry And he must sincerely repent of having done so But if he will yet go on in the way of his own heart we shall be sorry for him and not cease to pray the Lord if it be his will to have Mercy on him and to give him repentance for the scandalous sin which he hath committed in publickly slandring Christs Ministers and in boldly asserting a notorious falsehood in matter of fact saying That the new Law of Grace is a new Word of an old but ill meaning And that he hath really done so we have not only said but proved by the plain testimonies of credible Witnesses whereof two Sealed the Truth of the Gospel with their Blood above fourteen hundred years ago SECT II. Of his second Error that the Covenant of Grace is Absolute and not Conditional SEcondly the Author of the Letter asserts that the Covenant of Grace is Absolute and not Conditional as appears from page 18. at the end and page 24. And particularly he denies that Faith in Christ is the Condition of Justification page 8. Some say that faith justifies as it is a fulfilling of the condition of the New Covenant if thou believest thou shalt be saved This he finds fault with and opposes to it the old Protestant Doctrine as he calls it That the place of Faith in Justification is only that of a Hand or Instrument c. Where we observe 1. That he makes faith its being a Condition and its being a hand or instrument to be two opposite things the one whereof is inconsistent with and destructive of the other and so in this he not only fights against us but likewise against the Assembly of Divines at Westminster who held Faith to be both an Instrument and a Condition in the matter of Justification as was shewed before 2. He makes it to be New Doctrine and contrary to the Old Protestant Doctrine to hold that Faith is a Condition of the Covenant of Grace and that we are Justified by Faith as a Condition of the Covenant wherein he makes the Assembly as well as us to be Preachers of a New Doctrine and Corrupters of the Gospel since they likewise held Faith to be a Condition of the Covenant as aforesaid And again in page 9. We say that Faith in Christ is neither Work nor Condition nor Qualification in Justification but is a meer instrument and he affirms that their saying so is that by which the fire is kindled So that saith he in page 10. It is come to that as Mr. Christopher Fowler said that he that will not be Antichristian must be called an Antinomian Here it is very remarkable that he not only denies Faith to be either Work Condition or Qualification in the matter of Justification but he also in effect affirms that it is Antichristian to assert that Faith is either Work Condition or Qualification and that he will therefore rather choose to be called an Antinomian for denying than to be an Antichristian for affirming it This is and must be his meaning or else he was dreaming and knew not what he did when he cited Mr. Fowler and brought in his Judicious saying with a so that it is come to that as Mr. Fowler said c. Finally in page 25 at the beginning he says that Faith in the Office of Justification is neither Condition nor Qualification but in its very act is a renouncing of all such pretences From all which it is plain that we do not wrest his Words nor charge him with an Opinion which he doth not hold for he so firmly holds the Covenant of Grace to be Absolute and not Conditional and particularly that Faith is neither the Condition of obtaining Justification nor a qualification of the Person then Justified when he believes that he glories to be accounted an Antinomian rather than renounce that Opinion page 24. And he holds it to be New and Antichristian Doctrine to maintain that Faith is either a Condition of obtaining Justification or a qualification of the Person justified or to be justified in that instant of time wherein he believes Before we refute this Opinion we will briefly
way of Preparation for Christ but they may and ought immediately to receive him into their Hearts by Faith and Confidently trust him with their Souls and Bodies with their whole Person to be saved by him in the way agreed upon between God and Him and may be firmly and fully perswaded that if they do so through Grace they cannot possibly miscarry under the hand of such a Saviour and Physitian of Souls Thus we Preach and we know none can have just cause to say that this is a new Gospel and we hope none will any more say so We are sure this used not to be accounted a new Gospel heretofore in England nor is it so accounted at Geneva * Turret Instit Theolog. Elenct part 2. Loc 15. quest 5. p. 592. for Turretin lately taught there That in the Spiritual Generation no less than in the natural the Soul of Man attains unto the Spiritual Birth by many precedent Operations and God who will effect that Work in man not by violent raptures and Enthusiastical Motions but in a way agreeable to our Nature and who doth not in one Moment but successively and by degrees carry it on uses various Dispositions whereby man may be prepared by little and little to receive saving Grace at least he does so in the ordinary way of Calling So that there are various Acts previous to Conversion and as it were degrees or steps towards the thing it self before Man be brought unto the State of Regeneration And they are either External which may be done by a Man or are in his Power such as to go unto the Church to hear the Word and the like or they are Internal which are excited by Grace even in the Hearts of the unconverted such as the Reception and Apprehension of the Word Preached Knowledge of the Divine Will some Sense of Sin Fear of Punishment and some kind of Desire of Deliverance Thus Turretin in a Book Printed at Geneva in the Year 1688. By all which Testimonies we have made it plainly appear That our Opinion concernnig the Preparations and Dispositions which ordinarily go before Regeneration and saving Conversion is neither new nor singular but that what we Believe and Preach as to this matter we have learned and received from the most eminent Pastors of the Reformed Churches whereof many have lived and died in the true Faith before many of us were born And this may suffice as enough and indeed too much for the Confutation of our Authors third Error against the Purity of our Christian Faith CHAP. III. Of his Ridiculous Way of Converting an Vnbeliever AND first we acknowledge to our Authors Praise that he made a good beginning and from the 17th line of the 15th page to the beginning of the 16th he Discourses well enough and shews how indispensibly necessary it is that a Sinner believe on Christ and what warrant he hath from the Command as also what encouragement from the Conditional Promise of God in the Gospel to believe on Christ for Justification and Salvation But we cannot say that as he made a good beginning so he continues till he have made a good end for he gives several miserable Answers to the Questions which he makes the Unbeliever to put unto the Minister who is perswading him to believe in Christ First He makes the Unbeliever to ask the Minister What it is to believe on Jesus Christ Whereunto he Answers That be finds no such Question in the Word of God but that all both Believers and Unbelievers the Disciples and the Enemies of Christ did some way understand the Notion of it And this he endeavours to prove because it was commonly reported by Christ and his Apostles That Faith in Christ is a believing that the Man Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God the Messiah and Saviour of the World so as to receive and look for Salvation in his Name and this common report was known by all that heard it This is no satisfactory Answer for the Unbeliever may easily reply 1st That though in the Scriptures there be no such Question in so many express formal Words yet there is sufficient ground in and from the Scripture for a Man to ask such a Question because the Scripture speaks of several sorts of Faith of an Historical Temporary and miraculous Faith and of a saving justifying Faith Of a Faith that is common to unconverted Wicked Men and Devils and of a Faith that is proper and peculiar to Gods Elect. These Faiths are of different natures and therefore one of them must have something that another hath not and each of them must have that whereby they are constituted in themselves and distinguished from one another And this being â—o that the man be not deceived to his ruin he hath great reason to put the foresaid Question and should be commended for asking if he do it seriously What it is to believe on Christ To believe in him so as he ought to do so as may be to Gods Glory and his own Spiritual and Eternal Good 2. He may reply that if there were no ground for such a Question why did the Westminster Assembly put that same Question in the Shorter Catechism which they composed for the use of Children Had they no warrant from Scripture for putting such a Question Or doth the Scripture only warrant Ministers to put Questions to the People but not warrant the people to put Questions to the Ministers Again he may say that if there were no ground for putting such a question Cap. 14. Art 1 2. why did the same Assembly in their Confession of Faith give such a large Description of Faith was it not that they and all who own their Confession might be readily furnished with an Answer to such a question which they knew was expedient to be asked since there are several sorts of Faith in Christ and so much Hypocritical counterfeit Faith in the World and in the Church and necessary to be wisely and judiciously answered that people may understand what kind of Faith it is that they are chiefly to seek after and get and if they have it that they may know it to their comfort and may bless God for it and give him the glory of it 3dly The Unbeliever may reply That it doth not follow that because Christ and his Apostles commonly reported that Faith is a believing that Jesus is the Son of God the Messias and Saviour of the World so as to receive and look for Salvation in his Name Therefore the thing Reported was known by all that heard the report and they did all some way understand the notion of it For we read in Luke 18. v. 31 32 33. That Christ told his own Apostles as plainly as any thing can be expressed in words that he would go up to Jerusalem and that there he should be most cruelly and shamefully put to death and rise again the third day And yet in the very next verse
that Synod And we would hope also that our Author and those of his way will not be against this mutual forbearance when they consider that the said middle-way was not only tolerated but even approved by the Synod of Dort in that the suffrages which expresly asserted it were approved and that long before it was held by our first Reformers both at home and abroad For instance the Universality of Christs death in the sense before explained was believed and professed by the Blessed Martyrs Latimer and Hooper in England as also by the Church of England her self and by Luther in Germany and Calvin at Geneva as shall be proved by their own words to be seen in their writings extant at this day if any have the considence to deny it At present we shall only give our Brethren to understand First That Luther on John 3.16 God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever c. says Jam sanè tibi omnibus hominibus fatendum est mundum c. Now truly thou and all men must confess that the whole race of Mankind is called the World comprehending in one all men in general and every man in particular do'st thou believe therefore that thou art a man or if thou canst neither believe nor know that put thy hand in thy bosome or feel thy Nose make an experiment whether thou hast not all thy Members full of flesh and blood as other men Wherefore then wouldst thou exclude thy self out of this word World since Christ expresly declares that God did not send his Son to the Virgin Mary only nor gave him to Peter or Paul but to the World that all might lay claim to him even as many as are called the Sons of Man c. Secondly That Calvin on 1 John 2.2 says Ego verum esse illud dictum fateor sufficienter pro toto mundo passum esse Christum sed pro electis tantum efficaciter I confess that saying to be true That Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole World but efficaciously for the Elect only And on Rom. 5.18 Communem omnium gratiam fecit quia omnibus exposita est non quod ad omnes extendatur reipsa nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur non tamen omnes apprehendunt The Apostle saith Calvin Makes Grace common to all Men because it is exposed to all Men not that it is really and effectually extended unto all For tho Christ suffered for the sins of the whole World and through the goodness of God he is indifferently offered unto all yet all do not apprehend or receive him Here is that which is called the middle-way owned by Luther first afterwards by Calvin as plainly as can be expressed in so few words Whereupon we demand Did our First Reformers Luther and Calvin by this Corrupt the Old and Preach a New Gospel or not If they did corrupt the old true Gospel and preach a new false Gospel Then 1. We owe no great thanks to them or respect to their Memory for their Service in Reforming the Church 2. If we grant this to be true of Luther and Calvin we betray the Reformation and yield to the Papists that which their hearts do most earnestly desire that Luther and Calvin may be accounted Two Impostors and Deceivers who deluded the People corrupted the Christian Religion and Preached a new Gospel to the World For our parts we dare not thus far betray the Protestant Cause to the Papists rather than do so we maintain that Luther and Calvin by holding universal Redemption in the sense explained did not corrupt the Christian Religion nor preach a new Gospel And if they did not then those amongst us who hold universal Redemption as they held it do no more corrupt Religion nor preach a new Gospel than they did and consequently it is a vile Calumny and Reproach cast upon us and through us upon 〈◊〉 First Reformers that by the middle-way aforesaid we corrupt Religion and preach a new Gospel We have been something long in shewing the false-hood of our Authors first Calumny and in wiping it off because it is general and seems to comprehend or to be the ground of all the rest that abound in his Letter But for the rest of them since we have removed the grounds of them by the account we have given of our principles in the points of Justification and of the extent of Christs death they fall of themselves and light on the head of him that raised them and therefore we shall not much trouble either our selves in refuting them or others in reading a long Refutation of them Yet we will take particular notice of some of them and briefly shew how false they are Second Calumny HIS Second is to be seen in the the sixth page of his Letter where he saith Let. pag. 6. The righteousness of Christ in his active and passive Obedience hath been asserted by Protestant Divines to be not only the procuring and meritorious cause of our Justification for this the Papists own but the matter as the Imputation of it is the form of our Justification Here a gross Calumny is implyed to wit that we differ not from the Papists in the point of Justification and to make the simple people believe this he gives them to understand that we hold Christs righteousness to be only the procuring and meritorious cause of Justification and that the Papists own this as well as we do and consequently that there is little or no difference between us and the Papists in the Fundamental point of Justification But that this is a Calumny doth appear by what we have said before when we shewed that Christs Righteousness alone comes in the place of that personal perfect sinless Righteousness which was the condition of the first Covenant in Innocency and of the law of Works and by which personal Righteousness man was to have been justified according to that Covenant if he had perfectly kept it and had not fallen from his Innocency There we shewed that since no man in his lapsed state hath or can have in himself that personal sinless righteousness every man is to seek a righteousness in Christ that may serve him for his Justification instead of that which he should have had in himself but hath not and he that seeks it in Christ as he ought to do will there find it For Christ by his obedience unto death even the death of the Cross hath paid the full price of our Redemption and by paying that price hath made full satisfaction to the Justice of God for our sins and hath merited for us the full pardon of our sins and eternal Salvation of our Souls if we sincerely believe repent and obey the Gospel by that Grace which he hath also purchased for us by his blood promised to us in his Word and gives unto us by his