an enemy of the Churches peace that dissents in judgement from the Church in some particulars as in ages past it was or he that confessedly dissents from the Church whereof he is and where he lives and as that present it stands I think here the determination is easie Let us enquire whether of these dissents will work more heart-broyles quarrels contentions envyings mutuall oppositions and needless disputes and let that be agreed upon as well it may to bear the blame If all must be tyed up to keep peace and be at one with the Church as to all particular tenents in the revolution of all these ages they are then tyed to know and their Pastors are bound to teach what in all successive ages hath been the Churches opinion But this were a great burden for Pastors and far more intolerable to be put upon the people If a man may be secure in this that he goeth not against truth I think he need not trouble himself as to ages past in the matter of peace Had you produced the vote of Antiquity as a probable inducement to perswade that you had truth according to Scripture and reason on your part it had been somewhat such appeals to humane Authority after Divine Testimony produced is ordinary but to dissent from the Church in which a man lives and of which he is to avoid the danger of a breach of peace with the Church that sometimes was is such a way of peace that I never yet knew troden or taken 2. Whether Antiquity be as cleer for you as the Church in present is for me The latter you freely grant but the former will I think hardly be yeelded notwithstanding what you say Because a word or an opinion that is unsound hath got possession of a little corner of the world for about 150 yeers therefore I am suspected as a novelist for forsaking it Whereas it is to avoid singularity and notorious novelty that I assent not to your way The same I say about the interest of mans obedience in his justification as continued and consummate in judgement If either Clemens Roman Polycarp Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Clem. Alexand Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Cyprian Athanasius Eusebius Greg. Nazianzen Epiphanius Cyrill Hierosol Synesius Cyrill Alaxandr Macarius Hierome Salvian Vincentius Lirin Vigilius or any councill were of your mind in any one of these points and against mine then I will confess at least my supine negligence in Reading and my very faulty Memory in retaining their words How fully you have proved the unfoundness either of the word or opinion in question others must judge But whether the novelty be so notorious as you speak is to be enquired into and in order to that I shall request you Some things propounded to the Readers consideration To take into consideration who they be that make the loudest noyse and send out the greatest Cracks about the Fathers If the Church of Rome may be believed all Antiquity is theirs Hoping to put that cheat upon us as the Gibeonites sometimes did upon Israel Ad patres si quando licebit accedere confectum est praelium Tam sunt omnes nostri quam Gregorius 13. Papa filiorum ecclesiae amantissimus Pater Testes fenestrae omnes res reculae It is still their pretence that all former ages were on their side If we might but appeale to the Fathers saith Campian the controversie were ended They are all as fully ours saith he as Pope Gregory the 13. that most Loving father of the Sons of the Church As the windowes in the Church all other things and thinglings to take the liberty to coyne English as he doth Latine are their witnesses So all the Fathers also that the truth is with them I will say no more but that these naked names will appear to Judicious Readers but as an empty sound a voice and nothing more 2. That some of untainted integrity and of no lesse ability to give account of the Judgement of Antiquity in these controversies have asserted the full contrary to that which you here with so much confidence deliver Chemnitius was a man differing from you in every piece of this doctrine in which you dissent from me and particularly your adversary in all these three poynts in which you make this appeal to former ages He is a man zealous for the instrumentality of Faith in Justification he is large in asserting the promise of mercy in Christ to be the speciall object of Justifying Faith and against your distinction of Justification begun by Faith alone and consummate by works yea there is not a man that ever wrote that appears more your adversary in this poynt then he being judged the most learned grave and moderate of that party in the Reformed Churches wherewith you are most displeased in this Controversie yet he is full in quotation of Antiquity as of his side both in his Common places and in his Examination of the Council of Trent 144. After a List of authorities brought by him his close is worth observation (a) Haec pauca ideo annotavi ut ostenderem doctrinam nostram de Justificatione habere testimonia omnium piorum qui omnibus temporibus fuerunt idque non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus nec in otiosis disputationibus sed in seriis exercitiis poenitentiae fidei quando conscientia in tentationibus cum suâ indignitate vel coram ipso judicio Dei vel in agone mortis luctatur Hoc enim solo modo rectissimè intelligi potest doctrina de justificatione sicut in Scripturâ traditur Quaeres put concerning this Appeale These few saith he I have noted that it may appear that our doctrine of Justification is attested by all the Godly of all ages that have lived in all times and that not in their Rhetoricall declamations or vaine disputes but in their serious exercises of Repentance and Faith in their Conflicts of conscience in temptation or with their own unworthinesse or before the Tribunal of God or in the Agony of death For this way saith he the doctrine of Justification as it is delivered in Scripture can alone rightly be understood What can be now more contrary then his Testimony and yours how high are both your confidences in full contradiction one against another That which you say is a notorious novelty he saith hath the attestation of all antiquity who shall he now believe that hath not nor cannot search the Authors themselves that have lived in your 1300. or 1400. years 3. I would have you to take into serious consideration these following Quaeres 1. Whether the doctrine of those that bore the name and outward face of the Church was uniforme through out that whole series of time that you take in in you◠challenge Whether in the time of Thomas Aquinas and the following ages the doctrine concerning Justification in the Latine Church was the same as in the daies
much for you as the most of those that are by you produced You may see that I distinguish of conditions serviceable to man in his return to God 1. For recovery of his lost estate of happiness 2. For the repair or new frame of his qualifications depraved and spoiled cap. 11. pag. 74. The condition immediately serviceable for mans return to God reconciled in Christ I say is Faith in the page quoted The condition respecting mans reparation in his qualifications to hold up communion with God I say is Repentance cap. 14. pag. 93. This then with me enters not the act of justification but is the justified mans way to bliss and glory And when Repentance is at the highest and obedience at the best it is not repentance nor obedience but the bloud of Christ in which faith alone interests us that must be our discharge So that if I may take the boldness to interpose my thoughts as to that multitude of quotations which you have produced for the interest of works in justification I think for the greatest part they labour of that Fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi Put them into Syllogistical form and the Reader shall find that they do not conclude the thing in question They very fully speak a necessity of good works to Salvation which is the unanimous judgement of all Orthodox writers and the question is about their interest in Justification Which two in the judgement of Protestant writers very much differ as you may see in Mr. Ball Treatise of the Covenant pag. 18. Whose testimony I have produced at large p. 434. c. and thither I here refer you Where you may see the sole interest of faith the instrumentall efficiency or causality of it with an utter deniall of any interest of works in this of justification So that he alone may speak for all that the acknowledgement of the interest of works according to the tenor of the Covenant as a way appointed of God for attainment of glory doth not argue any interest at all of works in the work of justification But to return to that from which these quotations have caused this short digression I think you might have spared those words If I were on one side and all the Divines in England on the other there is yet the same reason to prefer all the first Churches before all them as there is to prefer all them before me In a word I shall ever think him more culpably singular who differeth from Christ and his Apostles and all his Church for 1200. or 1400. yeers then he that differeth from any party now living and differeth not from them forementioned Unless you could make it better appear that Christ and his Apostles and the Church for this space of time were more cleerly for you It is the Churches Testimony that is now our business and if the Reader have no more then Chemnitius bare word affirming with so much confidence as we have heard that all ages have been against you it is enough against your bare word that all former ages have been for you You now see my thoughts how they stand upon the Reading of that part of your Apology in which I am concerned Though it be above my hopes to give you satisfaction yet others I doubt not wil be more flexible in their opinion What you wil please to do further I know not it is enough that I understand my own mind which is so far as I can before-hand resolve not to intermeddle further and whatsoever I shall hear from you to impose silence on my self You have drawn me out to speak what is here said in my own just defence If this will not do it I shall think it will not be done Let me request that Christian Candor that the Common cause may not suffer and that you will not dwell on literall mistakes or unaptness as you may conceive sometimes of the phrase but take that which you shall judge to be my full meaning which I have made my business as fully as I can to make known I have no more to make yours or the Readers trouble but shall leave all to your candid interpretation and his impartiall censure and not onely subscribe but with unfeigned resolution by the help of grace remain in acknowledgement of your manifold eminent graces Your true affectionated Friend Brother and fellow labourer THOMAS BLAKE An Alphabeticall Table relating to the chief heads handled in this Treatise A. Abraham WHether any Sacraments from Adam to him Page 24 The question discussed in severall propositions Ibid. c. Acts Of God are entitled to man and the acts of man to God in Scripture Page 451 Actions Are denominated good or evill from the Law onely Page 613 Adam Was not Created an infant in understanding Page 15 Admission Of men of yeers to Baptisme examined Page 101 The way of the Primitives in it laid open ibid. Admission by a Church-Covenant examined Page 102 Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Admission to the Lords Supper not to be exempted from cognizance of Church power Page 273. c. Rules for admission to Sacraments more explicite in the Old Testament Page 92 Antiquity Who they be that make the highest claimes to it as being on their party Page 652 Chemnitius his thoughts of the judgement of Antiquity concerning the Protestants doctrine of iustification Page 65â— 653 Quere's put concerning Mr. Brs appeal to Antiquity in point of Controversie Page 653 c. Proofs from Antiquity for the instrumentality faith Page 628 c. Evasions of these testimonies examined Page 661 Proofs from Antiquity that faith in Christ as pardoning sin is the justifying act Page 633 Proofs from Antiquity against the interest of mans obedience in justification as consummate Page 665 Apostates Application of the Seales of the Covenant to them is a putting a Seale to a blank Page 20 Assent Essentiall in Faith Page 502 It must be firm Page 503 Vnlimitted ibid. Assurance Of faith is possible Page 496 What sins cloud it Page 394 Astrology Judiciall Astrology censured Page 39 c. Arminianisme The Author vindicated from it Page 158 c. B. Mr. Ball. HIs testimony of the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 434 That works do not justifie ibid. That the New Covenant hath its conditions ib. That repentance is a condition of the Covenant Page 435 No condition of justification Page 436 Baptisme Johns Baptisme in the whole of it of divine institution Page 436 Contempt and neglect of Baptisme censured Page 68 An emprovement is to be made of it Page 72 The sin of Covenant Parents destroyes not the Child 's right to Baptisme Page 97 Visibility of interest the Churches guide in admission to Baptisme Page 104. 110 How far Faith and Repentance antiently were required in Baptisme Page 109 Their grounds or reasons who delayed Baptisme in the Primitive times Page 110 Their way of admission of the Catechumeni to Baptisme
condescend to our weaknesse to answer what infirmity can expect or feeblenesse crave We might think that Gideon was exceeding bold with God to ask a double sign for the strengthening of his faith in the promise of God to save Israel by his hand yet we see God is pleased to gratify him Judg 6.39 40. yet God deales more abundantly with us not onely in a double but a multiplied confirmation to make good every truth which he hath been pleased to manifest And as he teacheth us by similitudes drawn from earthly things as we see in the Prophets and parables from our Saviours mouth so also to speak to our eyes in these signes and seales ratifying and confirming heavenly things unto us Those great mercies which no thought can reach are set out in so obvious a way that every eye doth behold and see That water which we employ for our common use and among other necessary services cleanses all filth that cleaves to us serves to set out that great mystery of the blood and Spirit of Christ taking away both guilt and filth of sin The bread which we have at our table the wine which we drink for our food and repast that sets out both the attonement and divine nourishment which our soules find in the flesh and blood of Christ crucified and dying for us There is abundant weaknesse and tottering in our faith that needs in this manner to be strengthened Abundance of sweet mercies in our God that will vouchsafe this to strengthen and support us Secondly If Christ thus condescends to our weaknesse Christs compassion towards us should move us to compassionate our selves in making provision of these helps let us learn to have compassion of our selves and not neglect or despise so great favours If Christ had judged us to have been of strength he had never tendred us this crutch and when he sees that we need it and therefore hath provided it let us see that we do not reject or despise it Is it not to imitate Ahaz in his obstinacy who when he could not believe the promise that God would deliver him and his people from the combined power of Israel and Syria that were then before Jerusalem and having a sign tendred him of God either in the depth beneath or the height above for his assurance in the thing he answers he will not desire a sign Isa 7.11 12. he will rather dwell in his unbelief and perish As that sign was to that promise so all Sacraments are to Gods great promise He that casts away Sacraments indulges unbelief and we may well fear that he shall dwell in it to destruction CHAP. XI SECT I. The whole of the work of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal THe next observation followes The whole office and use of Sacraments All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers is by way of sign and seal They have no immediate effects for the working of any inward graces or priviledges but as our understanding is exercised by them as Indicative signes and our faith as ratifications and seales of the promises The text that we have under our hand is abundantly full to his purpose Scarce any text holds out a truth I may say more clear and full then this text doth that which is here delivered if we take in the context with it The Context opened to which the copulative And leads The Apostle having in the former Chapter delivered the doctrine of justification by faith goes on here to make it good by the Example of Abraham and his argument rendred in syllogistical form appears to be this As Abraham the father of the faithful was justified so must all the faithful This is taken for granted as needing no proof But Abraham the father of the faithful was justified not by works but by faith The Assumption consists of two parts and the Apostle proves both 1. The negative that he was not justified by works this he proves by two arguments 1. If he were justified by works then he hath whereof to glory ver 2. But he hath not whereof to glory before God Ergo he was not justified by works 2. If he were justified by works the reward were reckoned not of grace but of debt ver 4. But the reward is not of debt but of grace Ergo. Which he further confirmes by the testimony of David describing the blessednesse of man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin ver 7 8. As David describes blessednesse that way man is blessed But David describes it to be by imputation of righteousnesse and not by works Ergo. The affirmative that Abraham was justified by faith he proves by a full testimony of Scripture Gen. 15.6 He believed in the Lord and he counted it to for him for righteousnesse Now it might be objected that this justification of Abraham and blessednesse that David speaks of was nothing to the Gentiles uncircumcised but to the Jewes in the state of Circumcision and so Circumcision may yet have an hand in justitification This the Apostle denies ver 10. and proves the contrary by the time of Abrahams justification which was in uncircumcision not in Circumcision If Abraham were justified in uncircumcision then Circumcision hath no hand in justification But Abraham was justified in uncircumcision Ergo But then the greatest question is to what end or purpose he was circumcised having already that righteousnesse which doth justify what needs more Circumcision then might have been let alone The Apostle answers that he was circumcised on a twofold account for a double reason The first is in reference to his own estate in faith which equally concerns all in his state of believing He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised The second in reference to the whole Church that he might be the Father of all that believe in Circumcision or in uncircumcision so that we have both the Apostles authority and his argumentative discourse for confirmation of our point That the work and efficacy of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal We shall find Peter giving his vote with Paul in this thing where he enters a dispute about Baptisme as Paul here doth about Circumcision as you may find 1 Pet. 3.20 21. having mentioned Gods long suffering towards disobedient ones in the daies of Noah while the Ark was a preparing he saies Few that is eight soules were saved by water That element which as an executioner of divine vengeance destroyed the world of the ungodly as an instrument in the hand of God preserved Noah and his family It destroyed the world by overwhelming of them as after it did Pharaoh and his host It saved Noah and his household by keeping the Ark above trees rocks mountaines buildings or whatsoever might have been
how great things they ascribe to the body of Christ received if no barre be put which they understand of the Sacramental bread is very well known But as some have observed where poyson growes providence takes care that there be antidotes found so none of these ever appeared in the Church but some by the good hand of God have stood up in opposition How mightily did the Prophet Jeremy oppose himself against that over-high opinion that the Jewes in his time had of Circumcision Jer. 9.25 26. As also Paul making use of his authority against the Jewes in his time and disputing at large against it Rom. 2. And the Apostle Peter foreseeing it seems that Baptisme would be set up as high among Christians as ever Circumcision was among the Jewes makes it his businesse to prevent it Having affirmed that Baptisme saves he is careful to let us know that it is not by its own power but by the resurrection of Christ that is Faith in the Resurrection and further explains himself that it is not the outward act alone but as answered with an inward work that hath that power as you have heard And Popish Schoolmen making it their work as we have heard to advance Sacraments to that height Protestant Writers in a sull stream have appeared to set them on their right bottome and to make it appear what it is that Scripture attributes to them and what in their right use may be expected from them Calvin's words lib. 4. instit cap. 14. Sect. 14. are high and notable having opposed the doctrine of nuda signa which makes Sacraments to be bare and naked signs On the other hand saith he b Rursum admonendi sumus ut isti vim Sacramentorum enervant usumq prorsus evertunt ita ab adversâ parte stare alios qui arcanas nescio quas virtures Sacramentis affingunt quae nusquam illis à Deo insitae leguntur Quo errore periculosè falluntur simpliciores et imperiti dum et Dei dona quaerere docentur ubi reperiri minime possunt et à Deo sensim abstrahuntur ut pro ejus veritate meram amplexentur vanitatem Magno enim consensu Sophisticae Scholae tradiderunt Sacramenta novae legis hoc est quae in usu nunc sunt Ecclesiae justificare et conferre gratiam modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalâ—s Quae sententia dici non potest quà m sit exitialis et pestilens eoque magis quod multis ante saeculis magna Ecclesiae jactura in bonâ orbis parte obtinuit Planè certe diabolica est nam dum justitiam cirra fidem pollicetur animas in exitium praecipites agit deinde quia justitiae causam à Sacramentis ducit miseras hominum mentés in terram sâ— apte sponte plus satis inclinatas hâc superstitione illigat ut in spectaculo rei corpore ae potius quam in Deo ipso acquiescant we are to be advertis'd that as those weaken the efficacy of Sacraments and utterly overthrow their use so there are others on the other hand that assign I know not what vertue to them such that we never read that God ever put into them which errour saith he dangerously deceives the simple and unlearned Whilest they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot be found they are by degrees drawn from God to imbrace meer vanity instead of truth For the Schooles of Sophisters with great consent have taught that the Sacraments of the new law that is those that are now in use among Christians do Justifie and confer grace provided that we put no barre of mortal sin Which opinion saith he hath been of more deadly danger than can be spoken and so much the more because for many Ages to the great losse of the Church it hath prevailed It is certainly saith he devillish for whilest it promiseth Justification without Faith it casts soules headlong to destruction And upon that account because they derive the cause of righteousnesse or Justification from the Sacraments by this superstition they so ensnare the poor soules of men over-much of their own accord inclined to earth that they had rather rest in a corporeall element than in God himself This is his entrance upon the dispute That which he hath further upon it in four whole Sections is very well worth the reading The consent of other Writers of his time and that have followed after him as a cloud of witnesses might be produced but this as the Reader hath heard is already done to my hand And when some of reverend esteem and singularly deserving in the Church of God have gone overmuch on this hand as soon as it was carried abroad in Manuscripts a learned Manuscript of Mr. Gatakers met with it and afterwards appearing in print as a Posthumous work this as soon as it came to the Authors cognizance by his zeal to the truth followed it And let me here adde to that which hath been said that if nothing else yet experience might correct this over-high conceit of the work of Sacraments That which we evidently see is not wrought by Sacraments we cannot believe they are assign'd of God to work This Proposition hath certainly reason in it They certainly do that office which God hath assign'd and appointed them But we evidently see that they do not actually work all that they figure out even where according to these there is no bar put therefore there is no cause to believe that they are design'd of God for it Here I might instance in their failing in the work of remission of sin in Infants seeing when they come to growth we oft see them in that way of sin that stands not with actual forgivenesse But I know that many that here are adversaries confesse an intercision of Justification and therefore this is not against them and others that admit not that doctrine speak of a double Justification one for the state of Infancy another of those that are of growth upon their acceptation of Christ by faith and therefore though sins be remitted in Infancy and afterward upon their acting of sin charged here is no such intercision of justification which Arminians hold and their adversaries oppose I shall therefore wave this and instance in the failing of Baptisme in the work of regeneration which is as well figured out in Baptisme as that other of remission of sin Baptisme comes not alone to remove the guilt but also to correct the power of original corruption and so to work in us a freedome from the power of sin as well as the pardon of it And in case Baptisme effects this work how is it that sin in Infants is so apt to shew it self that as soon as they act they are so readily prone to act that which is evill When Saul said he had done the Commandment of the Lord Samuel had a confutation ready What means then sayes he this bleating of sheep and lowing of oxen in mine ears that
mentions and not the sense 2. Saith he I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it but I find no reason from him but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus before his Aphorismes ever came to light and had I not been able to have given my self satisfaction I had been in that opinion if not before him yet before I had any light from him to lead me to it That horned Argument of his that if faith justifie as instrument it is either as an instrument in the hand of God or in the hand of man with his reasons against both I have made use of argumentandi causâ before any work of his saw the light 3. The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification I thought it saith he of dangerous consequence to say that man is the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins And I think every honest man should be of that mind and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made that Justification by faith in opposition to works makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The efficient and that Justification by works gives it to God onely If this be once made good I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith and that ever I opposed that self-denying man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works and shall hence forth conclude Where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law of faith Nay but by the Law of works There is added Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it but for the next viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onely assert this instrumentality but laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification it is say they that they fundamentally erre and we principally differ and that in these four Points Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers 1. About the formal cause of our righteousnesse which say these Divines is the formal righteousnesse of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde in the habitual righteousnesse of his humane nature and others the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which justifies which most of our forreign Reformers say is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sin by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof Adding his own censure I doubt not but all these four are great errours Of how dangerous consequence soever it is that man should be made the efficient of justifying and pardoning himself yet it had pass'd without controll if worse than this had not been vented by the learned of the reformed Religion It is yet well that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence that yet so many learned are on their party Those learned errours should be taken into further consideration and some that are learned have entred the lists with Mr. Baxter in them The second of these great errours he tells us is true and how a great errour can be true I cannot tell unlesse his meaning be that it is truly an errour which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures And when this second is true I cannot see and I think few of his Readers will see how the first to which it relates can be false If it be true that by Gods imputation of this righteousnesse of Christ we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ then that is true also that they say that Christ is our righteousnesse or that the righteousnesse of Christ of meer grace is made ours And how much good will is here shewen to the reforming part is too manifest in making one Party amongst them to hold The natural righteousnesse of Christs Divine nature is not our Justification that the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature is our Justification as Bellarmine did before him and is answered by Davenant de just habit p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander It being his singular opinion and another sayes This opinion was almost like Jonas his gourd that did presently wither As for the third the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onely and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause They onely say that saith is a full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood I shall request from him therefore a Latine Treatise for their better information in this thing and not to trouble Controversies in English with that in which his English Antagonists stand right himself being witnesse Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way Gomarus putting it to the question saith That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perswasion and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted That which followes I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers That which troubled me saith he was this to think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion For who can imagine but that young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion when they find that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause what wonder if they judg our cause naught It is a greater wonder that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices but have left this work to Mr. Baxter to give them light in this in which Reformers so erre and unreformed Papists stand right so that it must be his work not Bellarmines Stapletons Suarez or any others to unreform But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence that so eminent a man that is like if himself may be heard to draw away so many speaks out such Language let us oppose against him on the other hand Albertus Pighius whom those of his party as Peter Martyr saies loc com pag. 541. made their Achilles and thought that he alone by his subtile wit had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison Pighius
a learned Papist joynes with Protestants in the doctrine of Justification and many others This great wit of the Popish party reading Mr. Calvin to confute him in the point of justification was confuted by him and wrote with us against his own party as is not onely affirmed by men of our party as Davenant de just habit cap. 29. pag. 382. Albertus Pighius saith he in his controversies largely explains and confirms our opinion 1. He excludes inherent righteousnesse from any efficacy in justification 2. He manifestly approves the imputation of Christs righteousnesse Lastly He gives his reason why the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to us for justification And then addes Many more things are found in the same author who though in other controversies he maintains a fierce warre with Protestants yet being overcome with the clear light of truth in this of Justification he fell off from the Papists and came over to our party And Capel in his preface to Mr. Pembles tract of justification Pighius saith he though of a peevish spirit enough yet reading Calvin to confute Calvin in the very doctrine of justification was confuted himself and wrote with us but also acknowledged by our adversaries Albertus Pighius is checkt by Bellarmine saith Dr. Prideaux lect 5. Pag. 165. for that in reading our authors himself at last became a Lutheran in this article And that Pighius may not stand alone on our parts among Romanists Davenant in the place quoted produces many others 1. The whole covent of Canons at Cullen in their book which they entituled Antididagma Who acknowledge the imputed righteousnesse of Christ to be the chief cause of our justification Titu de justific 2. The Romish party in the Conference of Ratisbone Who saith he gave their vote the same way pag. 47. 3. Isidore Clacius orat 40. in Luc. 4. Naclantus Episcopus Clodiensis cap. 1. ad Ephes pag. 59 72. The two first of these authorities are quoted by Dr. Prideaux likewise Adding that Cassander Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus Arius Montanus did tread in the same path and therefore miserably suffer by the Index Expurgatorius Cardinal Contarenus is likewise frequently quoted by Amesius as on our party And Dr. Prideaux saith that almost four yeares before the Councel of Trent he had so asserted the orthodox doctrine of Justification that being as is thought taken away by poyson he did not long survive And for the whole space between Gregory and the reformation our author pronounces it that authors generally for the most part were more sound in their commentaries then in their disputations and in their meditations soliloquies and conflict of temptations then in their polemicks Bringing in Chemnitius instancing in Bonaventure and others So that in case they have one of eminence amongst us we have one of theirs as eminent and in case he should prove too light we have many more into the bargain to make up weight There followes Now to the thing it self Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification I will consider when I can find them And his Reader will consider no more of his jeeres when he can look into his books and his eyes miffe of them Some of those of whom he hath made boast as his converts in this controversy have professed themselves satisfied with that which I have written though Mr. Baxter cannot find it I am told that I begin and say more for faiths Instrumentality in receiving Christ than for the instrumentality of it in Justification And the truth is I know not how to distinguish them If it be an instrument to receive Christ that doth justifie it is with me an instrument in Justification If mine eye be an instrument by which I receive in light for sight then mine eye is the organ or instrument of sight If I prove the one I think I cannot be denyed the other The Instrumentality of faith for receiving Christ is thus reasoned against If Faith be the instrument of receiving Christ then it is either the act or the habit of Faith that is the Instrument I am well aware that if I shall affirm either of these that then either some text of Scripture will be called for specifying such habit or act of faith in justification or a needlesse stirre will be made about these Logical notions The safest way then is to say with Scripture that faith is the grace that receives Christ and that interests us in propitiation in his blood and the grace by which upon that account we are justified without limitation of it to either the act or habit Neither can any answer as I suppose be thus given but such as will coincidere If I say the habit justifies it is as it puts forth it self into act Whether the act of faith or the habit doth justifie If I say the act justifies it must be as it comes from the habit and so both habit and act justifie Neither doth a mans justification cease when the habit of Faith in sleep ceaseth acting seeing justification denotes a state which is remaining and abiding It is further said Receiving strictly taken is ever passive A reason then may be seen why Divines have called faith a passive instrument in justification and Mr. Baxter may see a fair answer to the high and indeed scornful censure that he gives to the most learned as himself stiles them in his preface to this apology The most learned saith he in the upshot flie to this that credere is not agere but pati and is but Actio Grammatica or the name of action but Physically or Hyperphysically a suffering Is not here a curious doctrine of faith and Justification If Aristotle had been a Christian he could not have comprehended it But I confesse I see no reason to make receiving Neither receiving not believing are in the Authors thoughts meerly passive and consequently believing to be at least meerly passive There is alwaies an act of the will in rational agents in receiving properly so called and often of the hand The receivers of custome are agents for the States and in their receipt are active Receiving in a civil ethical lesse proper sense as is further said is but the act of accepting what is offered But is not this accepting properly receiving or is not receiving properly so called at least necessarily joyned with it in such civil ethical reception When I give a beggar an almes does not he in as strict a sense receive it as I do give it and this is either his act of acceptance or that which accompanies it If I put water into a vessel the vessel rather contains it then receives it If I give a child a lash he rather suffers then receives â—t So that receiving strictly taken is as well active as passive and rather active then passive There is added When it is onely a relation or a jus ad rem that is offered consent or acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession
comparing me to plunderers in time of fight which would but weary the Reader to see repeated whereas after other words I add I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgement without almost a dissenting voyce have made faith an instrument in this work speaking most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument He is pleased to reply But Sir what 's the cause of this sudden change Through their great condescension I have received animadversions from many of the most learned judicious Divines that I know in England And of all these there is but one man that doth own the doctrine of faiths instrumentality but they disclaime it all some with distaste others with a modest excuse of them that use it and the gentle Interpretation of a metaphorical instrument and that remote for so they would have me Interpret our Divines I told you this when I saw you and you asked me whether Mr. C. were against it To which I answer not so much as diverse others that write to me but judge you by his own words which are these Object But though faith be not the instrument of our justification may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ Answ I think they mean so and no more who call faith the instrument of our justification c. I shall not be unwilling to yeeld to you that to speak exactly faith may better be called a condition of our justification so farre Mr. C. To this I answer 1. Why have we not the authority of Divines that are open to all mens eyes rather then of those that lye dormant in his hands and there are sure more in the presse then in his private study in Manuscripts No one is produced and I scarce think can be produced 2. I would he would publish to the world the labours of these eminently learned persons that we as well as he might see their weak opposition of plain Scripture which somewhere is his free censure 3. There are those if intelligence do not deceive me that he hath said he hath brought to his judgement in this thing that yet have professed themselves satisfied with that which I have said and are they of both our minds 4. For Mr. C. upon the coming forth of this Apology he wrote to me among other things in these words Mr. C. vindicated Mr. Baxter pag. 19. citeth some words of mine about faiths instrumentality but it had been fair to have signified what I say further about it especially in my second writing when I perceived what advantage he did take of that which I had said before onely to avoid contending about words which I do not like so far Mr. C. I said in my Treatise the work about which faith is imployed is not an absolute but a relative work a work of God towards man not without the actuall concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act of God or man can be sole instruments but there must be a mutual concurrence of both To this is replyed A dangerous doctrine in my judgement to be so nakedly affirmed no doubt but justification is a relative change and it is past controversie that it is not without the actual concurrence of man for he must perform the condition on which God will justifie him But that God is not the sole efficient nor any act of God the sole instrument I durst not have affirmed without proof Neither durst I have charged any mans speech with danger of that nature without disproof unlesse I should think it enough to make it so because in my judgement it appears so and that which is here granted as without controversie is with me a proof sufficient If it be not done without the actual concurrence of man and is done by such concurrence of which we have as many proofs as there is mention of justification by faith there must be some kind of efficiency in this concurrence There is somewhat of efficiency in mans concurrence by faith in Justifâ—cation that man should be justified by faith and faith have no hand at all in it I cannot reach I bring for proof the absurdity that will follow upon denyal in these words This must needs be granted unlesse we will bring in Dr. Crispes passive recipiency of Christ Christs abode in man without man in spight of man and suppose him to be justified in unbelief To this is replyed This is very naked asserting why did you not shew some reason of this ill consequence It 's past any reach to see the least If I were too short it is now done to my hands where a mutual concurrence of God and man in the work is confest tell me how it can be denyed unlesse Christ come into man without man and in spite of him for if man act in it he must needs be an agent It followes Why do you still confound Christs real abode in us by his Spirit with the relation we have upon justification when even now you affirmed it was a relative work as you call it I pray by the next shew us more clearly how these absurdities follow that doctrine And doth not a relative work of this nature necessarily presuppose this abode by the Spirit and is not a relative change a necessary consequent of it If strangers to Christ be justified by Christ The relative change in Justification necessarily presupposes a reall I am to learn in the doctrine of justification that desire of his I think is already satisfied I further say faith is disabled from this office in justification by this argument If faith be an instrument It is the instrument of God or man c. to which in my Treatise I answered it is the instrument of man though man do not justifie himself yet he concurres as a ready willing agent with God in it To which is replyed If this be not a palpable contradiction saying and unsaying my Logick is lesse then I thought it had been If it be mans instrument of justification and yet man do not justifie himself then either man is not man or an Instrument is not an instrument or justifying is not justifying It seems he would have us by the way know that his thoughts of his own Logick are not low The Author acquit from the charge of a palpable contradiction but if other mens Logick cannot solve this contradiction yet me thinks his might who sayes receiving strictly taken is ever passive and a man may be passive in justification and not justifie himself But perhaps with me it is of more difficulty that have affirmed That reception hath still somewhat at least of action in it but this reception here in question hath no more of action then serves to possesse it self of a free gift which ever adds honour to the giver not to the receiver I distinguish therefore of instruments of meer reception and instruments
the mercy-seat durst not lift up his eyes to heaven seeing a large list of sins and not of vertues or praise-worthy carriages goes away justified rather then the Pharisee Here is a subject morally qualified to be a fit patient to be justified not yet actually justified which also was their case Acts 2.37 with the Jaylours Act. 16.30 which I think neither Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Woodbridge can find affirmed of any actually in the faith who according to Scripture are actually justified and not barely qualified to be fit patients in due time to receive it There followes I would have Pareus here put against this which is quoted out of Mr. Woodbridge speaking by way of objection against the Orthodox doctrine of Justification he saith Faith justifies that is Fides justificat i. e. disponit ad justitiam Respondeo Glossa contorta Scripturae ignota et repugnans Justificare enim dicitur fides accipiendo donum justitiae absque operibus non disponendo ad justitiam Nec justificatio fit per motum sicut calefactâ—o sed per imputationem Quod si sicret per motum admodum impâ—oprie fidei tribueretur Neque enim motus ad rem est res ipsa nec dispositio generat sed est via ad generationem Non igitur per motum dispositionis fides justificat it disposes or fits for Justification and answers A wrested glosse unknown to Scripture and contrary to it For faith is said to justifie by receiving the gift of righteousnesse without works and not by disposing for righteousnesse Neither is Justification by motion as is warmth but by imputations And if it were by motion it were most improperly ascrib'd to faith Neither is motion to a thing the thing it self nor doth a disposition obtain any thing but is the way to obtain it Therefore faith do's not justifie by any motion of disposition Pareus in Rom 3. Dub. 8. The reason of this is That this is onely donation or the will of the donour signified that can efficiently convey a right to his own benefits the receiver is not the giver and therefore not the conveyer of right I wonder what this is a reason of if it be intended for a reason of that which goeth immediately befote that faith doth morally qualifie in the way mentioned it is above me to see any reason in it It is further said Every instrument is an efficient cause and therefore must effect and it is onely giving that effecteth this right But it effects no such right without receiving where it is given upon that proviso that it be thus and thus received After much ado and to what purpose let others judge The conclusion is The great thing therefore that I affirm is this that if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ or righteousnesse yet doth it not justifie proxime formaliter as such but as the condition of the gift performed And the great thing that I would affirm is That the instrumental apprehending Christ or righteousnesse is this condition of the gift It is given upon condition that we make use of our faith to apprehend it and so the summe is That faith doth not justifie formaliter proxime as apprehending Christ or righteousnesse because it doth justifie proxime formaliter as thus apprehending Faith as a condition certainly doth somewhat and this it is that it doth according to the Scripture The eighth and last of his accurate heads followes In which he saies he opens his meaning together about this point though as he saies with some repetitions I cannot then without repetitions give any further answer which to the Reader would be too troublesome yet somewhat is observable that I find not before Faith saith he must first be faith i. e. apprehensio Christi in order of nature before it can be the condition of right Actual existence not necessary to the being of a condition in a Covenant If faith must have an actual being before it can be the condition of right then perfect obedience according to the old rule as Mr. Baxter calls it must first be perfect obedience in actual being before it can be a condition of the Covenant of works and so it will follow that that Covenant hath no condition seeing there is no such actual obedience A condition may be a condition though not made good though never made good The delivery in of an hundred foreskins of the Philistines was Davids condition for Marriage of Sauls daughter before any Philistine was slain and had stood as a condition though had never been given in If he mean that faith must be faith before the condition be made good this is false for the actual being of it is the making of it good and so it is as much as if I said I must wink in order of nature before I shut my eyes He further distinguishes of apprehensio Christi and conditio praestita when apprehensio Christi is conditio praestita as though I should distinguish between Abrahams sacrificing of his son and his obedience of Gods command in sacrificing him when all know that his sacrificing him was his obedience To say that there is such a thing as faith in the general notion before Christ doth constitute a condition were somewhat but to say that we believe or apprehend Christ before we perform the condition is to say we must perform the condition before we perform it Having led the Reader through all this accuratenesse I must further consider his animadversions I said The Spirit will do nothing without our faith and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit man cannot justifie himself by believing without God and God will not justifie an unbelieving man faith then is the act of man man believes yet the instrument of God that justifies onely believers To which I have a multiplication either of answers and scornes in place of answers 1. It is said The Spirits working in sanctification is nothing to our question of justification It is yet somewhat for illustration for which alone it was brought though nothing for proof for which it was never intended 2. It is said The Spirit works our first faith without faiths coworking and that is more then nothing What need he to have told me this when I had told it him before as the Reader may see in words which he omits I speak there of the Spirits work in the soul where faith is implanted 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith moveth it self Here is an exception to fill up the number If I move my pen to write before it move then I write something without my pen. 4. It is said It is not so easily proved as said That the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul nor yet restraineth from any evill without the coworking of faith But why is not this disproved with ease I would know for my learning what act of the Spirit upon a beleeving soul is
he saies He speaks not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but c. I think he ought to speak so of it when he speaks of it as an instrument of justification In his sense I suppose it can be no instrument of justification an instrument must serve to work the thing of which it is an instrument but in this case justification is before-hand wrought and therefore according to the proverb it cannot do that which is done before it comes for the truth of this let Mr. Baxter speak The accepting Christ in this Covenant is true justifying faith if an unregenerate man have this indeed then he is justfied pag. 66. A believing man hath this indeed and so is indeed justified and the grant of the Covenant is an instrument for justification of a justified person I am demanded Do you not often read in Divines of justificatio juris vel legis as distinct from justificatio judicis vel per sententiam And I demand whether of these justifications do procede If justificatio juris go not before justificatio Judicis then the Judge justifies him whom the Law justifies not In case it follow after then it is onely a manifestation or declaration of it of which we may have further occasion to speak hereafter And this considered it appears to me that Mr. Baxter speaks ef the Covenant onely as eyed of God and not applyed to us and then indeed it is no instrument of God whereby he justifies but his rule according to which he justifies Pardon of sin is a relative change yet Ministers appointed of Jesus Christ for the pardon of sin are instrumental in working a real change from unbelief to faith in order to this work and so are instruments of pardon dispositivè as Mason de Ministerio Anglicano speaks as well as declarativè I added in my Treatise Forgivenesse of sin is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.38 but it is to those that believe that are justified faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it And here comes in my second charge mentioned I should tremble saith Mr. Br. to say so what Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of justification I answer Paul a Romane extols faith as high as I have done in Scripture already quoted in the work of justification The Author acquit from complyance with Romanists and according to Mr. Baxter farre more seeing through the whole Chapter of Heb. 11. he speaks as he sayes not onely of justifying faith but as justifying yet he is no Romanist 2. Mr. Br. well knowes the Romanists distinction of a first and second justification which first justification Protestants onely allow according to Scripture to be called justification and that there is according to them no ingrediency of any other grace but faith and no merit in faith but all of grace for which he may see Mr. Crandons first parallell Part 2. pag. 215. It followes If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of justification and can this be unlesse it be also said that we made the Gospel then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of donation But how this can follow I think few but himself can see It will onely follow that the Gospel cannot justifie us without us that which Austin hath de verbis Apostoli Ser. 15. will follow He that made thee without thee doth not justifie thee without thee It will follow that somewhat is to be done by us without concurrence of which the Gospel for justification is inefficacious Qui ergo fecit te sine te non justificat te sine te and how the second can follow that the Gospel is our instrument of justification I desire to know If Naamans dipping himself seven times in Jordan rendred it by Divine appointment efficacious for cure of his Leprosie will it follow that Jordan was his instrument whereby he cured himself If the Angels moving on the water Joh. 5. gave efficacy for cure to him that first entred will it then follow that it was either the Angels or his instrument that first entred and not rather the instrument of God onely And to his question moved Can this be unlesse we made the Gospel If we should grant that it is our instrument will this follow Can no man use an instrument unlesse he first made it Peter it seems was no fisher but rather a Cutler and made the sword wherewith he cut off Malchus ear or else he could not have used it as his instrument Neither followes it that God and we are concauses It would onely follow that there is a willing concurrence in us to accept of that which God of grace doth give That of Austin will follow which immediately is added in the place quoted Ergo fecit nescientem justificat volentem tamen ipse justificat ne sit justitia tua He therefore that made thee unwilling doth not justifie thee unwilling yet he doth justifie thee lest it should be thine own righteousnesse It will then follow that in self-denyal renouncing all self-righteousnesse we humbly accept what God of grace doth give After these supposed absurdities we have a list of subtle questions Is it the same power and efficacy for justification which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its efficacy and power the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it That faith gives efficacy to the Gospel for sanctification Mr. Baxter will not deny as appears in his words that follow and his own exposition of Heb. 4.2 1 Thess 2.13 before mentioned here let him then first answer his own question respective to Sanctification and by the help of him and light borrowed from his illuminate notions I shall aym somewhat at it to answer his respective to Justification If it be the same power and efficacy for sanctification that the Gospel receives from God and from faith then God must convey efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel for sanctification and till I have his answer why should I be so vain as to confute his There followes Oh that you had condescended to your Readers weaknesse as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut fiat potens efficax Quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter Aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium For answer
our heart the grace of justification and so also the Ministers of the Church and others which teach us the way of salvation Dan. 12.3 Gomarus Matth 5.4 pag. 46. denying any affections or work of man preceding faith to be the procuring cause of justification and affirming that faith it self is no such cause but an instrument onely gives this reason e Nullae hominum affectiones ac praeparationes nullaque opera fidem antecedentia justificationis causae nedum proreantes esse possunt imo nec fides ipsa causa illius est procreans cum ealaus soli gratiae Dei ac merito Christi efficaciae Spiritus sancti comperat Rom. 3.24 28. Ephes 2 8. sed tantum instrumentalis That honour belongs onely to the grace of God and merit of Christ and efficacy of the holy Ghost so far are these Divines from excluding the Spirit from having any hand in this work such a Gospel instrumeâ—â—ality as that it should do nothing at all on the souls of men I have not before read or heard of As it tenders conditions so it is employed to work the conditions that it tenders It makes known the mind of God that men believing have right to Christ and in him to justification and it works faith for justification onely believers saved by it and it is the power of God and not nudè signùm voluntatis divinae to salvation And as the Simile brought by Mr. Baxter of a Fathers bequeathing by his testament an hundred pound a peece to each of his sons To one on condition he will aske it of his elder Brother and thanke him for it to a second and third upon conditions at pleasure with this demand upon it Do any of these conditions give power to the testament No yet the testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed why is that saith he because all such instruments work morally onely by expressing ut signa the will of the agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his will that they shall not work till such a time and but upon such termes c. He might easily see how little this serves to our present purpose 1. That which he speaks of is a bare testament and no more but the Gospel as elsewhere I have shewed is a Covenant truly so called and not barely a testament 2. Those Legacies are such gifts that each son would be apt to imbrace being ready to put a sufficiently high estimate upon them But this Gospel-gift if nothing further be done will for ever lye contemned and neglected 3. The will is a meer instrument of donation leaving the Legatee to himself to accept or refuse The Gospel is the instrument of Gods power by the Spirit to change the heart and work upon the will for acceptance 4. These testament-legacies presuppose the condition not yet performed and so the Legatee without all right upon Testament-termes But Mr. Baxters Gospel-donation supposes the conditions already done and the soul upon that account in full possession before this Gospel-donation comes It conveyes right to a believer and if he be a believer as hath been abundantly shewed he is in present possest of Christ his righteousnesse and justification by him And whether or no I have acquit my self from the double charge brought against me I shall leave to the Readers consideration 1. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture in a work in which there is as much of God and as little of man seen as in the work of justification then there is no reason but that faith also hath an instrumental efficacy in the work of justification This is clear The reason given why faith should have no instrumental efficacy is because this takes from God who alone is the efficient and ascribes to man who is justified and doth not justifie himself But an instrumental efficiency is ascribed in Scripture to faith in a work on which there is as much of God and as little of man as in the work of justification This is clear in miraculous cures wrought upon diseased persons The work upon them was Gods not mans They were cured and did not cure themselves yet an instrumentall efficiency is ascribed to their faith If those words spoke to the two blind men Matth. 9.29 According to your faith be it unto you nor that of Paul concerning the creeple at Lystra That he had faith to be healed Act. 14.9 nor yet that of Christ to the Canaanitish woman Matth. 15.28 O woman great is thy faith be it unto thee as thou wilt will not hold it out which yet seem to speak very much this way other graces were qualifications yet none but this is taken notice of yet that to the woman with the bloody issue is full Matth. 9.22 Mark 5.34 Thy faith hath made thee whole not onely made whole by faith which is an exception against faiths justifying but faith made her whole Quemadmodum fidei ascribit Christus quod mulier soluta est à morbo corporis ita certum est fide nos consequi remissionem peccatorum adoptionem filiorum Dei juxta doctrinam Evangelii words speaking as much of instrumental efficacy as may be The conclusion then followes That faith hath its instrumental efficiency in justification likewise Pareus his notes upon the words are worthy observation As Christ ascribes it to faith that the woman is healed of the disease of her body so it is certain that by faith we obtain remission of sins and adoption of children of God according to the doctrine of the Gospel 2. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture respective to salvation then there is an instrumental efficacy ascribed to faith respective to justification This is plain nothing can instrumentally work to salvation that takes not in justification But an instrumental efficacy is ascribed to faith respective to salvation Luk. 7.59 He said to the woman Thy faith hath saved thee In the context there is a full proof of the Major The great priviledge which she of grace received there is the forgivenesse of her many sins and this is acribed to her faith The Minor is fully proved Her great love is mentioned as a consequent of this grace received But it is ascribed to her faith as that which had its alone efficacy Thy faith hath saved thee As we are saved by faith or through faith Ephes 2.8 so faith saves The conclusion then followes that faith hath its instrumental efficacy in justification 3. That which puts a man into possession of that from which justification necessarily and inevitably followes that is either a principal efficient or an instrument in justification This cannot be denyed He that puts me into a place to which a plentiful livelihood is necessarily annexed is either the efficient or an instrument of my livelihood But faith puts into possession of Christ from whom justification necessarily followes
these that they cannot cast them out of themselves 2. Faith makes that resolute choyce of Christ that it suffers all manner of afflictions rather than to be driven and divided from him After ye were illuminated saith the Apostle to the believing Hebrewes ye suffered a great fight of afflictions Heb. 10.32 To save the labour of turning over large Volumes of Martyrologies read over that little book of Martyrs as some have called Heb. 11. especially ver 35 36 37 38. Faith kindles that flame that many waters cannot quench Christ upon earth was a man of sorrowes and acquainted with griefs yet he had those disciples that never left him till he came to the Crosse and then sollicitously enquired after him Where Christ dwells by faith there the Spirit strengthens for sufferings Ephes 3.16 17. If men now look into their hearts and see themselves willing to follow Christ in fair weather and to own his cause whilest it costs them nothing but in worldly respects rather gain by the bargain but when trouble ariseth they are gone These may look into the Parable of the sower whether this be not an evidence of a rocky and stony heart A strong wind is the tryal of the root of the tree of the foundation of the house an hot scorching fire of the truth of the mettal It is true that self-ends sometimes put a man upon sufferings But it is alwayes true that self-ends onely put a man upon profession when he will not stand out in sufferings They whose Religion is the States Religion the Times Religion will not lose an hair by any profession they make Self and not Faith carries on that profession 3. As faith carries the soul up to Christ to be one with him so also it carries it on in every affection and office of love to his brethren In Jesus Christ neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love Gal. 5.6 It is not to be of this opinion or of that which men call their faith nor of this Nation nor of that which too oft prescribes all that men in their way of faith believe But to be possest of that faith which works by love which commends us unto God A man may be of this or that faith according to pleasure and yet his faith utterly destitute of that grace Faith carries a man not any further at all towards Christ then his love carries him on towards his brethren An idle faith is a dead faith and a dead faith never reacheth righteousnesse to Justification and life James never disputed against Paul's assertion of Justification by faith onely Writing after him as is generally confest he did not write to contradict any doctrine or correct any errours delivered by him When Paul concludes Justification by faith James concludes that it is by a working faith Where it works not it doth not then justifie and where it works to acceptation it works by love CHAP. XIII SECT I. Of the number of Sacraments AS a result from all that hath been said of the nature and use of Sacraments we may conclude the definite and distinct number of them So many Ordinances that we can find in Old or New Testament-Scriptures that are signs and seales of this nature as here hath been set out from the Apostles words so many Sacraments there are truly so called equally worthy of that honour of Sacraments with this of Circumcision being every way of the same nature and use they are deservedly to have the same esteem But falling short of such they are to have esteem as they are and their dignity may challenge but not to be put into this number The way to find out the number of Sacraments And I know no other way then this to find out the set and definite number of them Those trifling arguments made use of by some that the matter of New Testament-Sacraments viz. Water and Blood came out of the side of Christ and that blood and water as John affirms bear witnesse on earth are not worthy to be mentioned save onely that they are used by some of eminent name And upon diligent search we shall find onely two stated standing Ordinances in Old Testament-Scriptures and onely two in New Testament-Scriptures that are to be thus received We have not indeed any distinct Text in either of both Testaments expresly testifying that there are two and two onely Sacraments as we find it ordinarily in Catechismes Neither is there any distinct Text in the Law or Prophets that as we would that men should do to us so we should do to them Yet our Saviour Matth. 7.12 tells us that that rule is both in the Law and in the Prophets being a clear result from that which the Law and the Prophets have delivered The like may we say concerning the number of Sacraments It is as clear a result from that which is delivered to us both from Old and New Testament-Scriptures so that the conclusion is twofold drawn by way of deduction of this nature 1. Two onely standing Ordinances in the Old Testament of the nature of Sacraments Two onely Sacraments in the New Testament There were in Old Testament-times onely two standing Ordinances of the nature of Sacraments viz. Circumcision and the Passeover 2. There are in New Testament-times onely two Sacraments viz. Baptisme and the Lords Supper We shall begin with Old Testament-times and here our way of discovery is First To find out all those Signes or Ordinances that are set up in competition as Sacraments Secondly To enquire into the nature and use of them Thirdly To find out how nigh they come to the nature of Sacraments and what agreement they have with them Fourthly where it is that they are defective and fall short of Sacraments truly so called SECT II. Rainbowe no Sacrament THe first that offers it self is the Rainbowe of which we might speak First as it is in nature for discovery of the physical being of it Secondly as a sign appointed of God But the first consideration of it is not my businesse but the work of Philosophers who out of Aristotle have defined it to be A Bowe of many colours seated in an hollow and duskish cloud The definition of a Rainbow appearing upon the reflection of the Sun in opposition against it He that pleaseth may read further in Magirus physiol peripat lib. 4. cap. 5. Keckerman Syst Phys lib. 6. ad finem Zanch. de oper Dei lib. 3. cap. 3. Valesius de Sacrâ Philosoph cap. 9. So that the efficient cause is the Sun The subject in which it appeares is a cloud standing in Diametrical opposition The thing it self is the reflex of the Sun The form and shape is a bowe of variety of colours Whereupon it is generally concluded that there were bowes of this nature before the flood the Sun being then in equal vigour to produce it and clouds in which the reflex might be apparent And the cause being then as
Where world in the first place signifies the earth in the second place men on the earth 2 Cor. 5.21 Him that knew no sin he made sin for us Where in the first place sin is taken properly in the latter place by a Metonymy 2 Chron. 35.24 And they brought him to Jerusalem and he died and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his Fathers and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah In the first place Jerusalem is taken for the City in the second place for the Inhabitants of it And so also Matth. 2.1 3. There came wisemen from the east to Jerusalem When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him With further instances which there may be seen concluding that therefore the supposition of the adversaries is false that the repetition of the same word must be allwaies in the same sense 3. No doubt say you but Paul and James handle two distinct questions but not the two that you here expresse Paul speaks of meritorious works which make the reward of debt and not of grace if you will believe his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such works but of such as have a consistency with grace and a necessary subordination to it I prove it The works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish Paul excludes not only works of merit but all works from Justification supposing time but the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of debt and not of grace To this I answer 1. That if Paul speaks only of meritorious works then according to you he speaks of no works at all for there are none such no not in Angels Confess Chap. 3. § 6 Paul speaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt and yet speaks not as I conceive of works of merit seeing as he mentions none such so there are none such He exclude then works to which a reward is due vi promissi rather then meriti As Eph. 2. he excludes boasting of works done by the help of grace for there is a matter of boasting in these as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18.11 2. If Paul had here spoken of works of merit and I must believe him so elsewhere he speaks of other works and there both you and I are to believe him likewise 1. He speaks and excludes all the works that we have done Tit. 3.5 Which he universally opposes to Justification by free grace v. 7. and it is of faith that it may be of grace Rom. 4.16 2. He speaks of and excludes all those works or that righteousnesse which is not the righteousnesse of God by faith Phil. 8.8 9. that is all the righteousness that is inherent in us and not in Christ alone and made ours by faith therefore he is called the Lord our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 and said to be made of God unto us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 3. He speaks of and excludes all those works which the Law commands Rom. 3.20 Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge yea the Law commands to take in grace wheresoever there is a tender of it for our assistance Requiring a duty it requires all necessary helps to it And therefore Chemnitius observes that when the Apostle excludes the works of the Law from Justification his intention is to exclude the highest and noblest not only done by Pharisees or unregenerate persons but Abraham David or the most eminent convents 4. He speaks of and excludes all those works that any man in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto in the place quoted 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet I am not thereby Justified He knew no matter of condemnation say you sensu Evangelico he then kept up to that which God in the Gospel-Covenant calls for And yet he is not thereby justified Though God will not condemne a man of that integrity through grace yet this doth not justifie This place saith Cartwright on the words is the death of your Justification by works For if Paul knew nothing by himself in that wherein the Corinthians might suppose him most guilty and was not so much as in that point Justified before God who is he that dares to Justifie himself before God in any work And Fulk on the words Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Justified by his faithfull service and labour in the Gospel therefore no man can be Justified by his works done of grace in as great perfection as can be done of mortall man If the whole discharge of Paules ministeriall function wherein he took heed to himself and to his doctrines was not such where by he could be Justified How then could Abraham be justified in offering Isaack or Rahab in her hiding of the spies If the Apostle therefore do exclude works of merit we see what works he also excludes with it You futher say Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs merits and free grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs merits or through our own meritorious works But James question is Whether we are Justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs merits Answ Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the bie Who can be of your mind that reads the Apostle speaking so often Paul treats diversly and industriously of Justification by faith and so fully to the office of faith in Justistification but that his scope is no lesse to shew what justifies ex parte nostri which it still faith then what that is that justifies ex parte Dei which is grace or ex parte Christi which is his blood or merit Pauls question you say is of the meritorious cause of our Justification James his question of the condition on our part If you are in the right Paul certainly was much defective in his Logick We think the question in debate is to be put into the Conclusion see how he concludes Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Inferences are made and consectaries drawn from that which is mainly in dispute and not from that which is collaterally mentioned and upon the bie onely touched upon Now he concludes from the doctrine of Justification by faith mentioning as we see Justification ex parte nostri peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5.1 You further say Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progresse but especially in the beginning but James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before works of obedience I Answer
of them I confess I have not seen as Polycarp Tatianus Macarius Athenagoras Vigilius as I have severall others that you mention not and I would fayne see what they have either for or against the Protestant belief Those that have not treated at all on this subject as in some of them that you name I am told by Dr. Prideaux that Christ is scarce mentioned or have spoken upon it only be the by are as much as nothing their names might as well have been spared as mentioned Mr. T. hath done as much for his Antipadobaptism in naming some of the Antients that never appeared for Infant-Baptism when they have not at all spoken to it and their contemporaries have asserted it 6. Whether the present Church of this age in which we live taking in our Fathers that lived within this happy 150. years since the Romish yoke hath been cast off be not as considerable and as much to be heeded in this controversie as all of those in your list mentioned if you should put in yet more to encrease so far as names could do it both weight and number They were subject to error and humane frailty as well as the Church that is and of late was They were not able to decide their own Controversies but laboured as well as we under contentions and divisions they were seldome unanimous but often at difference not only with others but themselves Nay have not our Writers the far greater advantage 1. Being far above yours in number go through Protestant Learned Writers within this Compasse of time and we shall find your List of names far exceeded 2. They have fully debated the cause and in publick Assemblies determined it in Confessions openly professed it Considered of and answered arguments against it turning over every stone to find out the truth in it so it cannot be said of the Fathers in your List mentioned and Nil tam certum quam quod ex dubio certum The Fathers that wrote before Pelagius have not been thought of that account nor so meet Judges in the point of Grace and Freewill having no adversary and therefore spake more loosly as Austin Prosper Fulgentius and those that followed who were by the adversary put upon the study of it Quid opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur non haebuerunt necessitatem in hâc aifficili ad solvendum quaestione versari quod proculdubio facerent si respondere talibus cogerentur The greatest Doctors at some times saith Dr. Fr. White Treat of the Sabb. p. 89. before Errors and Heresies are openly defended are not neither can be so circumspect in their writing as to avoid all forms and expressions all sentences and propositions all and every tenet which in after times may yield advantage to the adversaries of truth Quoting Austin de Praed Sanct. cap. 14. To what purpose should we search into their works which before this heresie arose had not need to busie themselves in the answer of this difficult question which doubtless they had done if they had been put to deal with such adversaries This we may fitly apply to this point of justification we are beholding the opposites of it for a more industrious fifting of it and more cleer light in it Paul had never spoke so much to assert a resurrection had there been none in that age that had denyed it Hâ—d not Popish School-men perverted the doctrine of justification Protestant Divines had never appeared with that zeal and fervor of Spirit in it And the Fathers doubtless had been more exact in their Treatises of this point had they seen it as we have done perverted and abused 7. If Fathers and all Antiquity were so abhorrent from the instrumentality of faith in justification How is it probable that any singularly verst in Antiquity so as to have few parallels and no way affected to the Protestant doctrine in the point of justification but averse from it and siding with the adversary should own the instrumentality of faith and argue for it if Antiquity were so averse from it he that takes it up is sure either ignorant in Antiquity or much engaged in his affections to the Protestant party But such there have been that can neither be challenged as ignorant nor suspected for partiall engagement that yet assert the instrumentality of faith witness Bp. Montague In whatsoever he hath otherwise been thought defective and detected by Bp. Carleton Dr. Featley and others yet he hath ever been of eminent name for an Antiquary For his averseness to the Protestant Doctrine of justication let not onely his adversaries speak that have appeared against him but Sanct. Clara our adversary who Problem 26. quotes Montagues Appeal Chap. 6. to prove the justification of a sinner consists in the inward work of grace inherent agreeable as he sayes with the holy definition of the Councill of Trent Now that this great Antiquary and friend of our adversaries appears for the instrumentality of faith in the work of justification see his Appeal cap. 9. part 2. putting it into his title that God doth justifie originally and faith instrumentall and reasoneth for it in the Chapter it self These things being prâ—mised as to the first concerning the Instrumentality of Faith Proofs from antiquity for the instrumentality of faith I thus argue They that are for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all whatsoever else in man they are for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification But Antiquity is very large for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all in man except faith in this work Therefore Antiquity is for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification Here the Proposition is first to be proved and then the Assumption The Proposition I â—hus prove To be justified by faith alone plainly holds forth somewhat peculiar to faith which is not found in any other grace this none can deny and you confess pag. 96. of your Confession Conclus 29. But nothing else can be faiths peculiar work distinct from other graces but to be an instrument in this work This is cleer This peculiar work or office of faith must be either to be an instrument in this work or else a Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non or else somewhat more noble then all of these as the formal meritorious cause c. But it s peculiar office cannot be meerly to be Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non both these equally belong to the works of Sanctification Though they be all present together saith our Book of homilies yet they do not justifie together pag. 15. At the same instant that God justifies saith Davenant he infuses inhaerent grace which yet he denies to be any cause but an Appendix to our justification de Justit habit cap. 23. pag. 315. Bellarmine sayes That Protestants agree in this
Moses Baptisme into him what Page 526 N. Names GIven by God not empty titles Page 12 Nature What meant by the times of the Law of nature Page 24 Necessity Of Sacraments asserted Page 285 c. Argumeats evincing it Page 288 c. The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments enquired into Page 289 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page 289 Objections answered Page 290 Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page 294 c. A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page 298 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. O. Obedience MAns sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page 195 196 197 Obligation Mans Obligation of himself unto God implies Gods mutuall obligation Page 130 Oblige Mans inability for duty doth not disoblige from duty Page 197 Orders Their number in the Church of Rome and their divisions Page 538 Most of this number doubted by themselves whether they be Sacraments ibid. The Matter Page 539 Form Page 539 Effect Page 539 Minister Page 539 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. Ordinances All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto Page 189 Sacraments must have the Honour of divine Ordinances Page 68 Originall sin Asserted Page 363 Distinguished into peccatum originans orinatum Page 365 Originall sin not a meer want of primitive integrity but attended with unversall defilement ibid. c. Oyle Anointing with Oyle Jam. 14 15. What it means Page 536 537 Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page 537 P. Parables CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page â—4 Pardon Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a mans self Page 452 Passive Neither believing nor receiving are to be judged meerly passive Page 442 In what sense faith passive in justification Page 476 c. Pemble Not sole and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page 476 He is large in reasons of it Page 475 Penance The parts of it Contrition Page 531 532 Confession Page 531 532 Satisfaction Page 531 532 Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page 533 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. People Allegations for their power examined Page 252 264 Perfection Of the subject and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page 586 Pighius A learned Papist with divers others joynes with us in the doctrine of justification Page 440 Pope He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page 464 Prayer A necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 509 Priest The several functions of Christ as Priest King Prophet are to be distinguished but not divided Page 562 Priestly Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 Privileges A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges Page 161 Profession Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page 128 Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page 172 c. Promise That which is the condition of the thing promised is not the condition of the Seal Page 173 Exceptions against it examined ibid. Gospell promises are a savour of death unto many Page 469 Protestants Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 The author is confest to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid. R. Rainbow DEfined Page 516 It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page 517 It was an instituted sign ibid. Correspondencies between it and the promise Page 518 How far it was Sacramentall ibid. How far it fals short ibid 519 Reall Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page 138 Common grace is reall Page 132 Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God Page 128 Regenerate Duties of positive institution do not onely bind the regenerate Page 195 Repentance How prerequired in Baptisme Page 108 Repentance and Faith Are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Right Fundamentall and actuall distinguished Page 88 The distinction cleered In civill immunities Page 88 Ecclesiasticall privileges Page 89 They must be both written Page 90 Right unto a bar to detain from Sacraments not alwayes express Page 91 Righteous Men are so denominated really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page 614 Righteousness Non reaâ—us is not righteousness Page 588 Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page 589 Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted ib. Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page 592 Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page 595 There is a partiall reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page 611 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Righteousness Christ The naturall righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page 439 Whether the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous be given to us Page 453 Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page 454 Faith being terminated on Christ is terminated on his righteousness Page 455 To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page 456 Righteousness Faith The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page 414 This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace Page 415 Proved by Scriptures Page 417 Confirmed by reasons Page 418 Explained by rules Page 419 420 Bellarmines five objections answered Page 421 c. Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page 415 So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant ibid. It is the Synechdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. c. All blessings and privileges flowing from and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprized under the righteousness of faith Page 416 Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid. Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib. All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page 429 Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib. Papists mistake in this point Page 429 c. Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness Page 432 Rock How it was said to follow Israel Page 524 The Rock it self was not intended as a sign but the water flowing out of it Page 525 Of the nature of a Sacrament ib. No standing Sacrament Page 526 Rule See Law S. Sacrament THe word vindicated Page 2 3 The reason of the word enquired after Page 4 5 The various acceptations of it Page 6 7 8 Whether man enjoyed or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity Page 9 No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. A Sacrament may be defined Page 32 c. The definition of a Sacrament in generall Page
never speak of the terms or means to attain it are no other then deceivers To speak largely of the Fathers bowels to receive and not a word of the Prodigals duty to come in or the multitude of sins that were forgiven that sinner in the City supposed to be Mary Magdalen and conceal her tears of repentance to be large in one and silent in the other is the way to heal with slight words Whereas as Mr. Baxter sayes The ungodly that I deal with are so confident that their sin is forgiven and God will not damn them for it that all that I can say is too little to shake their confidence which is the nurse of their sin When he makes this his businesse he does the work of the Prophets of John Baptist and of Christ Jesus and I wish that all the labourers in the Lords work may joyn with him in that way and that the Lord may give successe Yet I still believe that all this is to be done in order to a well setled and firmly grounded confidence when he tells those that come to Christ and hear his words and do them not clayming salvation by him and not obeying him that they build their hopes on a sandy foundation and foolishly deceive themselves I believe that he tells those that hear and accordingly yeeld obedience that their hopes of salvation have a firm bottom as a house built upon a rock But I know not why all of this should here in this place be brought in in the close of all that hath past as he sayes concerning himself unlesse it be to bear men in hand that my doctrine of conditional sealing in the Sacraments which he yet confesses differs little from his own may be charged with this danger when I suppose it is the alone way of prevention of it If I should make the words of the institution an absolute tender and the seal wholly unconditional I know not how to avoid it and I may very well fear that he cannot be without some such meaning First In that he puts into his Index as we have heard The danger of teaching men that they are bound to believe that they are justified and shall be saved amidst those things in which none but I are concerned and Secondly Where he first begins with me he utters like language pag. 3. I doubt not sayes he but the difference between you and me is onely about the methodizing of our notions and not de substantia rei and yet presently adds but I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads according to the true importancy of the expression may do more against their salvation then is well thgouht on and that not by accidence but from its own nature supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal How unhappy am I in methodizing of wholesome truths which are the same in substance with a mans of such eminence If that alone should have such a sad influence upon mens understanding though age growes upon me and many other weaknesses yet were I sensible of the truth of this charge I would travel on foot to the remotest ground in England to learn from any hand a more happy way and I have therefore been more large that the Reader may see the whole of my thoughts in this where I may seem to be under so heavy a censure that he may help me in prayer that in all that I do I may edifie and not destroy SECT II. Corollaries from the former doctrine LEt us here see the goodnesse of God the singular tender care of Christ thus to condescend to our weaknesse Christs tender care evidenced in his condescension to our weaknesse as to vouchsafe these visible sensible pledges and confirmations of our faith in the promises All that can be thought upon to ratifie and make good whatsoever from any hand we have in expectation Christ hath been pleased in his condescension to vouchsafe unto us In such a case we desire 1. A promise that he from whom we expect it would engage himself by his word for it This Christ hath done in the Gospel-promises we have his promise frequently repeated still inculcated Gen. 32.12 And thou saidst I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the sand of the Sea which cannot be numbred for multitude 1 Tim. 4.8 Godlinesse is profitable unto all things having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come Joh. 11.25 I am the resurrection and the life he that believeth in me though he were dead yet he shall live 2. When we have a word we yet desire an oath that the person by that sacred tye may be obliged not to recede or go back from that which he hath spoke This God hath vouchsafed when God made promise to Abraham because he could swear by no greater he sware by himself that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye we might have a strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us 3. When we have both word and oath yet we desire his hand that it may be subscribed that we may have somewhat to produce and shew for that which we expect This God hath vouchsafed Joh. 20.31 These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Sonne of God and that believing ye might have life through his Name Rom. 15.4 Whatsoever things were written afore-time were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope 4. Yet we desire earnest a pledge in hand to make good what is in Covenant and promise past and by oath under hand confirmed This God is pleased to vouchsafe Ephes 1.13 In whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance untill the redemption of the purchased possession 2 Cor. 1.21 22. Now he which establisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts 5. We yet desire a seal As Jeremy had the evidences of his purchase Jer. 32.10 This God hath also vouchsafed and this is of two sorts 1. Inward by his own immediate hand the stamp of his Spirit the impresse of his grace This is the character or mark that we are his these God sets apart for himself Ephes 1.13 Ephes 4.30 1 Cor. 2.21 22. 2. Outward put into the hands of his Ministers and these are Sacraments these outward visible assurances The former needs no conditions but it self all sanctified are saved and sanctification is the seal there are all Gospel-conditions The latter requires all the gracious qualifications of a people in Covenants All that are thus qualified according to the Gospel have here full confirmation and assurance of interest in all promises so willing is God every way to
it such To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active and that is the work of God and a justification passive of which man is the subject as I read of a double miraculous faith one active to work a cure the other passive to be cured Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed Acts 14.9 Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith not that it acted not at all which is contradicted by Christ in saying Thy faith hath made thee whole but that it served for a passive work on the diseased so I think this faith which tends to our justification is not meerly passive though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination When I receive a gift that enriches I act Yet he that gives onely does enrich and I that receive am enriched so it is in justification we do not justifie but are justified and yet act in receiving Christ for justification as sick ones in Christs tyme did not heal but were healed yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification I confesse I did somewhat needlessely runne upon this discourse of passive instruments upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any such thing as a passive instrument never intending to make faith meerly passive which was never my opinion neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers yet I would have those that are confidently opposite to weigh the streng◠〈◊〉 his reasons and find out if they can a more moderate middle◠〈◊〉 to ascribe somewhat more to the Word without injury do◠〈◊〉 the working of Gods Spirit I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit I take to be the greater which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry further to determine I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I mentioned that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckermans incus c. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument but onely to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint that these words do import an intimation as he expresses it that I said all these were active instruments And as the words stand in my Book it is hard to say what they import It should have been expressed and Keckermans incus c. and his scamnum and mensa accubitus and terra ambulationis no instruments which words I know not by what meanes were left out yet the Reader may see that they were intended seeing they are opposed to the other which are made active instruments But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others that I may well spare my paines neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them seeing though I doubt not but there are thousands of such kind of instruments I put not faith into that number as I know many godly learned do But it is easie to bear a dissent in a word of art when the thing in question is agreed upon As to the rest which followes in this tract against me in this thing there is very little but what hath been spoken to and this paper already growing more big then is meet for an interposition in this kind in a positive Treatise though not impertinent to the subject in hand I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies onely I must take notice of two passages one where I am charged with ignorance the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit In the first there are several particulars 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped that I had understood better I suspect saith he by your words when you say the Word is produced and held forth of God and by your discourse all along that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self So 〈◊〉 it is taken for granted that he cannot be mistaken when 〈◊〉 â—ruth is known Mr. Baxters writings and truth are one and 〈◊〉 same 2. My error is detected and I am sent where I may understand my self better You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul as the Papists say and our Divines say it sanctifies or as it doth justifie in foro Conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort but Sir saith he I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris pag. 173 174 c. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point But I marvel that it should be expected that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer and in the close of all when he hath spoke his full mind he addes pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission and justification adding Si quid novisti rectigus c. But now he peremptorily sayes I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart but as it is lex promulgata foedus testamentum and so doth convey right or constitute the duenesse of the benefit 1 Joh. 5.11 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhtings in this manner to take the chair 1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant which is the transient act in which justification is conferred on every believer find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it If so then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant if not whether he presupposeth that men upon the Lawes promulgation will believe of themselves without any further work or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith If these be answered in the negative that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation nor there is any other like instrument for this work then I think it must follow that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification Namely By working men out of unbelief into faith I had thought that when Paul and Appollos are Ministers by whom men believe that they had by the means of this encted or promulgated Covenant brought men to this posture And though justification be a relative change and not a real as is truly affirmed yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work Whereas
promise and that in Scripture made to men baptized for a larger measure of grace for strength for confession of faith But our acute disputant should shew us where this promise is made to his Chrisme made up of oyl and Balsame and thus cross'd and bless'd 2. He should remember that he himself tells us that the Apostles had this promise made good unto them without this or any sign at all 3. He might have found many of these promises in Old-Testament times which yet made up no such Sacrament in those daies Act. 8.17 vindicated The outward sensible sign he finds Act. 8. where it is said They put their hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost But 1. Papists use no imposition of hands in this supposed Sacrament 2. In other Sacraments both we and they make the outward sign and matter to be one and the same why is it then that imposition of hands is the sign and other things the matter 3. The gifts there mentioned are not saving but miraculous proper to those times and not found in ours 4. Those were conferred before Baptisme as well as after Act. 10.44 Who can forbid water that these should be baptized seeing they have received the Holy Ghost as well as we The command from God Bellarmine will prove from the Apostles use of this sign If God had not enjoyned imposition of hands The Apostles imposition of hands no proof of Confirmation they would not so ordinarily saith he have laid on their hands in conferring of gifts Answ 1. we look for a command for that which our adversaries do use viz. their Chrisme Balsame Crosse and not for imposition of hands which they use not 2. John did baptize yet our Author will not allow that for a proof that he had a command to baptize 3. The pen-men of the Holy Ghost wrote Scripture yet that is no proof with him that they had a command to write 4. Alex. Hal. part 4 quaest 9. affirms that Christ the Lord did neither institute nor dispense this Sacrament as it is a Sacrament 5. Thomas Aquinas is more modest likewise as we heard before when we spake to the Author of Sacraments confessing that their Chrisme is not found in Scriptures and he excuses it as not belonging to the being but solemnity of Sacraments therein confessing that all that belongs to the being of Sacraments ought to be written in Scriptures But though his answer is more modest yet it is lesse advised that which all his fellowes make the matter of this Sacrament he denies to belong to the being of it The ancient use of that which afterwards did degenerate into this soppery The ancient use of confirmation degenerated into this practice Bellarmine out of Chemnitius layes down in six Propositions 1. When a child baptized in infancy comes to discretion he is to be instructed in the principles of Religion and then to be brought before the Church and put in mind of his Baptisme how and why he was baptized 2. He is to utter a profession of his own faith according as he hath learned 3. He is to be examined in the principal heads of Christian Religion 4. He is to be admonished that hereby he now differs from Heathens Hereticks and all of prophane opinions 5. There is to be added an exhortation concerning the vow of Baptisme and the necessity of perseverance in the doctrine 6. This is to be concluded with prayer And if laying on of hands be used it may be well done saith Chemnitius without any superstition But when care in Catechizing and examination is wanting it is no better saith he then an idle Ceremony and with addition of the forementioned Ceremonies a meer foppery SECT VII Pennance no Sacrament THe next that they would obtrude upon us as a Sacrament is Pennance Satan not enduring the grace of Repentance hath made it his businesse to rob us of the Word and to bring in that of Pennance in the stead of it leaving little that is of God in it and making it up with the device of man It is not my work in this place to speak to Repentance as it is held forth in the Gospel to us and to be practised of Christians whether as it is inward the change of the mind and will from evil to good from Satan to God or outward in answerable works of obedience We confesse a necessity of it in this sense in the highest degree a necessity as well medii as praecepti being not onely enjoyned by command from God but of that necessity that salvation cannot be obtained without it Luk. 13.3 Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish but the Sacramentality of it which they assert we wholly deny Our souls having all made shipwrack in our first parents and upon that account made lyable to wrath the first plank for safety they say is Baptisme in which all sin Original or Actual before contracted is actually pardoned and that Sacrament is as they say of no further use for the pardon of any sins following after it The second plank for safety after shipwrack with them is Pennance which is a following Sacrament for remission of sins not so easie as the former but attended with more trouble The parts of pennance 1. Contrition consisting of three parts Contrition Confession and Satisfaction The first of these aright understood we willingly acknowledge to be a Christian duty and a necessary requisite to the grace of Repentance 2 Cor. 7.10 Godly sorrow worketh Repentance to Salvation not to be repented of Upon sense of sin we are brought to turn from sin 2. Confession Confession we likewise acknowledge knowing with Job that it is an evil to hide our sins as Adam Job 31.33 and that the Apostle tells us If we confesse our sins God is just and faithful to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousnesse 1 Joh. 1.10 But that which they would bring in which is a whisper of all in a Priests ear in order to take from him some bodily Pennance and accordingly receive his absolution we deny and well know that it were a vain labour to search into the Scriptures or antiquity for it Satisfaction we so farre receive that offenders to publick scandal must make that publick acknowledgement that the Church may with freedom receive them into communion 3. Satisfaction But for satisfaction to God we must let it alone for ever unlesse we will shoulder Christ out of that function and take it upon our own persons he will never suffer that we should be sharers with him in it and so we should be for ever on the work as the damned in hell are and never able to go through with it This is as though a man were fined of his Prince as much as the servant in the Parable was indebted to his Lord ten thousand talents and should attempt to pay it with a few pence of a counterfeit coyn of his own stamp
teach the world that the onely justifying act of faith is the accepting of justification as merited by Christs blood or the accepting of Christs righteousnes to justifie them it is not hard for an unprejudic'd man to discern For my part in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have triall of I can find no commoner cause of their generall delusion and perdition then this very doctrine Answ To this I might have many things to say 1. It is the hard fate Desperate Conclusions inferr'd from right principles if I may say so of Christian Religion to have inferences of this kind drawn from her principles And yet the way of Christians hath not been either to desert the principles from which they are drawn nor yet to own or defend the inferences or conclusions that are drawn from them The Apostle affirming that the exaltation of Gods glory in not utterly casting of the Nation of the Jewes was eminently seen in their disloyalty and covenant-breaking with him Inference is presently made that covenant-breaking and disloyalty cannot then be blamed If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie to his glory why yet am I also judged as a sinner That which advanceth Gods glory cannot be charged as a sin Bat covenant-breaking with God according to the Apostle addes to his glory and therefore it cannot be charged as a sin If answer be made that this exaltation of God in his glory is by accident and no thanks to him that breaks covenant but to the goodness of God that brings good out of evill From this inference is made also Let us then do evill that good may come which Conclusion was slanderously charged upon the Apostle Rom. 3. vers 8. The doctrine of Gods free election of some and passing by of others occasioned two dâ—sperate inferences 1. That there is then unrighteousness with God as deserting yea hating his creature without cause Rom. 9.14 2. That God then without reason finds a fault with his creature this being his will who can resist it Ro. 9.19 The wits of some have been indeed busied to put such a comment upon the Apostles words that no such inference as these with any colour or shew of reason can be drawn and thereby make it appear that their comment is utterly dissonant from the Text for from the Apostles doctrine these inferences in the judgement of blinded reason and rules held between creature and creature seem directly to follow as evidently appears in the Apostles answer To come nearer to the business in hand the Apostle making it his work to advance Gods free grace in mans justification some feared lest their sin was above the grace of a pardon To satisfie these the Apostle tels them that where sin abounded grace doth super-abound Rom. 5.20 So that the greatness of their sin exalts the free grace and favour of God an inference is presently ready Let us then continue in sin that grace may abound Rom. 6.1 And here indeed was as fair and full encouragement to sin as any that you hold out in your objection against this doctrine this very use which you say is now made by wicked ones of this Doctrine generally taught by Protestants was made as is said in the Apostles times by the Gnosticks and others who maintained that it was enough to believe that Christ died for sin though a man liv'd in all wickedness and ungodliness How could this so soon spring in the Church but that carnal ones found some-what that would bear some colour on which they might bottom it as omne mendacium fundatur in aliquâ veritate as may be seen verified in the instances mentioned Let not Christian doctrin then be blamed upon the account of such desperate deductions and cursedly wrested inferences As soon as reformation began and this doctrine among others appeared it is well known what from the adversaries it suffered As it was laid to the Reformers charge that they made God the author of sin so that Gibieuf with his black mouth makes Calvin worse then the Manichees so also that they utterly laid aside all care and regard of good works or wayes of godliness and that upon account of their doctrine that faith alone justifies It is well known with what a belly they use to picture Luther as if his work had been alone to drink And Bellarmine taking upon him in the preface to his fourth Tome out of the Revelation to set out what a creature a Lutheran is saith that those that are addicted to their belly for the most part fall to them And their orator Turner in his elogie of Drunkenness applauds the Lutherans with a bene secistis in that they have lest the Catholique Church to betake themselves to that party How full their invectives were against Calvin and Beza and all of their opinion as enemies of all godliness and friends of prophanesse almost all books of popish writers may witnesse Those things are famous that Bellarmine out of Bolsecke and Colcheus quotes to this purpose Granatensis in his dedicatory Epistle before his Dux peccatorum having laid this down as a maxime that Holinesse and purity of doctrine is a certain mark and note of true faith and Religion and asserted that there hath been no sect from the beginning of the world if we run through all ages to be compared with Christians for doctrine of concernment to mans Moral conversation he enters comparison first with Heathenism then with Turcisme then with Judaisme after Christs comming and lastly takes notice of the lives of Hereticks in the primitive times of the Manichees out of Austin Of the Gnosticks out of Epiphanius Of the Carpocratians out of Austin then he fals upon his own times and saies The Heretiques of our own times are no more holy They that have fetch'd back the errors of faith of former Heretiques from hell are also diligent followers of their practices what holiness of life saith he is to be expected from the Lutherans that with their speciall faith have set open a door to all impiety and the wicked practices of the Calvinists are better known saith he then we desire and thereupon tels us two tales first that some that neighbour upon Geneva being demanded why they did not reject the Catholique and receive Genevas Gospel answerd That was not to be wondered at for said they the words and books of Calvinists stuff'd with lies and fraud are carried further then the narrative of their wickedness But to us say they that go every week to their Market it is well known to be a kingdome of hellish confusion and therefore their Gospell doth not take with us His next is of a certain Minister of theirs who a few years before went into Hungary petitioned a Bashaw of the Turks for liberty to preach their Gospel to the Christians that lived among the Turks under tribute and to perswade the said Bashaw to grant his Petition he began with many reasons
is within the verge of such an Act may be said to be acquit by Law I willingly grant seeing that Act takes off the form of the Law force condemning him But that it is a Law strictly so taken I know not You conclude that you have now given some of your reasons why you presumed to call that Ignorance And I must presume to acquaint you that till I hear more of your reasons I shall remain in this as Ignorant as ever SECT IV. Imperfect conformity to the Law is Righteousness inherent as an Image less like the Pattern is an Image I Said in my Treatise The perfection of this Holiness and Righteousness in mans integrity stood in the perfect conformity to this Law and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God must have reference as to God as a pattern so to his Law as a Rule Here I pass by some words of yours of a Transcendentall pâ—rfection not well understanding them much less understanding that they serve at all to our purpose and come to your second There is a partial reparation of inherent righteousness in regeneration where you answer That there is a partial reparation of our Holiness in Regeneration but no reparation of our personall inherent Righteousness at all Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this to be dangerous doctrine Answ You entituled this controversie pag. 41. Sect. 28. Of Evangelical personal Righteousness And now you understand it of personal inherent Legal Righteousness Are Legal and Evangelical the same or are not you the same When the Apostle joyns Righteousness and true holiness together as that in which the Image of God did consist and is to be repaired in the Regenerate Is there a partial reparation of the one and no reparation at all of the other In your former reply you say I hope you observe that we speak not of that called Morall Righteousness consisting in an habit of giving every man his own but of justitia forensis where you seem to make that a full definition of such Righteousness when I had thought that Moral righteousness had given God as well as man his own And if we speak not of this righteousness when we speak of a Rule of righteousness I cannot but observe that it hath been a wild discourse and little to purpose ever since either of us entred upon it either we speak of this or else I think we might as well have kept silence I know no inherent Righteousness that is not Moral Righteousness You demand Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this for dangerous doctrine Answ You put it as though I intâ—nded that the Law raiseth a man to that Righteousness for which it calls in order to justification and life according to the tenor of the Covenant of works which were dangerous doctrine indeed rendring Christs death to be in vain as we may see from the Apostle Gal. 2.21 And of the more danger it is the more I suffer I say that the Righteousness of which I speak and which all I think understand when they speak as you do of a believing mans personal inherent Righteousness is from the Spirit of God working with power in the hearts of his chosen but yet according to the Rule of the Law of God and led by no other Rule And here I think there is no danger I illustrated this with a comparison As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Sampler is an Image so conformity imperfectly answering the Rule is conformity likewise Here 1. You come in with yoor Dilemma against me Either that Image say you is like the Sampler in some parts and unlike in others or else it is like in no part but near to like If the latter then it is but near to a true Image of that thing and not one indeed If the former then it is nothing to our case Answ You may do well to tell us what near to like means in the mean time I must tell you that you bring no perfect enumeration It is like in all parts though not with a full resemblance compleat in degree 2. You tell me that Scheibler saies that similitude do's lie in puncto as it were and ex parte sui admits not of magìs and minùs and therefore strictè philosophicè loquendo saith he that is only simile which is perfectly so but vulgariter loquendo that is called simile which is properly but miâ—ùs dissimile And then you adde by way of concession Similitude consisteth not in puncto but admits of magìs and minùs that Scripture speaks vulgariter often and not strictè Philosophicè as speaking to vulgar wits to whom it must speak as they can understand Give me leave then that pretend to know no more then a vulgar wit to speak the language of Scripture which I think was your own language in the last Section where you said that There is a partiall reparation of our holiness in our regeneration and this the Apostle tels us is the reparation of the Image of God Eph. 4.24 And as I take it the language of Scheibler also in his Topicks where I had thought he had spoken strictè or logicè at least and there he saith Paria â similibus omnino differunt and how they differ I know not if there be not magìs and minùs in simili as there is not in Pari. As you confess it to be true in Scripture-sense so I take it with Scheiblers leave to be true in the exactest philosophical sense Similitude is founded in quality as parity in quantity And that qualities are intended and remitted I shall believe till I have learn'd new Logick Davenant in Colos 3.10 saith This is to be held that Christ is otherwise the Image of the Father then we He is the Image of equality enjoying the same nature with the Father whose Image he is Every regenerate man is the Image of imitation imperfectly resembling some similitude of the divine nature in certain gifts of grace You conclude If all this were otherwise it is little to your purpose for in this conformity of ours there is somthing of quantitative resemblance as well as qualitative and so it hath a kind of quantity and parity in it as well as similitude to the rule Answ What there is of quantity and how much you do not tell and if there be not only a similitude but also a parity between God and man so that when God is judged of man he should be tryed by his peers I shall say nothing but rest amazed SECT V. Our actions are denominated good or evill from the Law only TO your next Section in which you complain of unfair dealing at my hands I have spoken sufficiently your close only is observable No doubt say you but that sincere obedience consisteth in a faithfull endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of Gods Law both natural and positive
many more Adversaries then you His work was published before yours and if you intended to publish no other doctrine How could you know that yours was like to blast your reputation with most Divines as in your Printed Letter you tell Mr. Tombs Pag. 409 When his work has mâ—ch advanc'd and not blasted his reputation at all In this Apology you tell me Pag. 16. of four great errors of the Protestant party in the doctrine of Jâ—stification aâ—quitting English Râ—form rs in one of them only And all except that one Davenant is as guilly as any The first is That the formall cause of our Righteousnesse is the formall Righteousnesss of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us And if this be an error no man is more chargeable then he with it He makes this the title of his 28. Chap. de Justit habit (a) Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae probatur The imputed Righteousnesse of Christ is proved to be the formall cause of our Justification Making it good in that Chapter by 11. Arguments and answering contrary objections Having confirm'd it with Arguments he proceeds in the next Chapter to back it with Authorities And quoting Justin Martyr in the first place he thus comments upon him (b) Hic aptrtè doc et Justinus Martyr non modo mortem satisfactionem imputati ad poenam delendam sed ipsam conversationem ejus seu obedientiam activam imputari nobis ad peccatum obliterandum Here Justin Martyr doth evidently teach that noâ— only the death and satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us to take away our punishment but also his conversation and active obedience is imputed to us to take away sin Pag. 374. The like we may find Pag. 378. upon occasion of quotation out of Cyrillus Alexandrinus The next error charged upon Protestants by you is about the way and manner of our participation of this Righteousnesse which the Divines say is by imputation And so Davenant says as we have already heard asserting against Bellarmine the greatest necessity as he speaks of it Pag. 32. Quoting against him Scriptures for it explaining Protestants meaning in it (c) Nos vero hâc imputatione justificationem sitam putamus non eo nomine solum quod Christus nos regit justitiâ suâ sed multò magìs quia donat nos justitiâ suà Neque dicimus Deum nos pro justis habere solummodo quia tectos conspicit justitia Redemptoris nostri sed quia ex sua ordinatione omnes credentes atque in unam personam cum Christo coalescentes justitiae ejus obedidientiae veré participes factos We think saith he that Justification is placed in this imputation not only because Christs covers us with his Righteousnesse but much rather because he freely conferrs his righteousnesse upon us Neither do we say that God accounts us as just only because he sees us Cloathed with the Righteousnesse of our Redeemer but because he sees by his own ordination all believers united into Christ as one person made truly partakers of his obedience But perhaps you are most offended with that which you put in the close of your Charge of this error upon Reformers That we are hereby namely by imputation of this Righteousnesse esteemed legaliter to have fulfilled the Law in Christ Which in your account is so high an error that with you it is one of the pillars of Antinomianisme And qâ—oting these words from a Reverend Brother whom sometimes at least you have had in high esteem That as in Christs suffering we were lookt upon by God as suffering in him So by Christs obeying of the Law we are beheld as fulfilling the Law in him You appeaâ—e to youâ— Reader whether it be true or tolerable Yoâ— seem to think that the naming it is enough to work a deep dislike if not detestation of it And if Davenant here be not as blame-worthy as he I am much mistaken See his third Argument for confirmation of his Thesis before mentioned Pag. 364. (d) Deus ex intuitu obedien 〈◊〉 per Christum praestitae usque ad mortem crucis nos liberavit à poenâ debitá legis transgressoribus imputando nobis hanc alterius satisfactionem perinde ac si nostra fuisset Ergo ex intuitu obedientiae per Christum praestitae usque ad impletionem legis nos donabit illis beneficiis quae promittuntur legis observatoribus imputando nimirum nobis hanc alterius justitiam quasi etiam nostra esset God in beholding the obedience performed by Christ even to the death of the Crosse delivers us from the punishment due to the transgressors of the Law imputing this satisfaction of another to us even as though it had been ours Therefore in beholding the obedience of Christ yeelded even to the fulfilling of the Law he confers these benefits upon us which are promised to the observers of the Law that is by imputing to us this righteousnesse of another as though it were ours And much more to this purpose And afterwards further explaining himself he sayth (e) Quemadmodum iutuitu imputatae satisfactionis Deus nos liberat ab ira poena quasi nos illam satisfactionem in propriis personis exhibuissemus Sic intuitu legis à Christo pro nobis impletae acceptat nos ad vitam proemium gloriae quasi nos nostrâ personali justitiâ legem implevissemus As upon sight of this imputed satisfaction God doth deliver us from wrath and punishment as though we had made satisfaction in our own persons So upon sight of the Law fulfilled by Christ for us he accepts us unto life and glory as though with our own personall Righteousnesse we had fulfilled the Law The third error which is charged upon Protestants is that from which English Reformers are acquitted The fourth is About the formall reason of faiths interest in Justification Which Protestant Reformers say as you observe from them is as the instrument This indeed Davenant doth not put to the question and purposely handle that I know as he does the former Yet we find him fully asserting it Answering Bellarmines objection that (f) Instrumentalem semper agnoscit non autem formalem nisi quatenus sub nomine fidei includit objectum fide comprehensum Quasi diceret Christi obedientiam fide apprehensam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae Luther made faith the formall cause of Justification he saith that Luther alwaies acknowledged it the instrumentall but not the formall unlesse under the name of faith he include the object apprehended by faith as though he should say that the obedience of Christ apprehended by faith is the formall cause of our Justification Where we plainly see Davenants mind 1. That that which apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ for justification is the instrumentall cause in it 2. That faith apprehends and applies this righteousness of Christ for
writers of note much differing one from the other in one particular subject I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification Your Reader may well judge that he is amongst those that you say Confes pag. 459. you may safely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls that they take heed of Where you warn all such that they take heed of their doctrine who make the meer receiving of that is affiance in the righteousness of Christ to be the sole condition of their first justification excluding Repentance and the reception of Christ as a Teacher and King and Head and Husband from being any condition of it yea and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement who call that affiance only by the name of justifying faith and all other acts by the name of works And as to that which you here assert that he speaks as much as you for the interest of works in justification you may conceit it but those that have perused him will hardly be induced to assent to it Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant then faith only (m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur conditio quà m verae vivae fidei In this Covenant saith he cap. 30. de Justit act pag. 396 there is no other condition then that of true faith required to obtain Reconciliation Justification and life eternall And having quoted Rom. 3.16 Rom. 4.5 Gal. 3.8 he adds Justification therefore and right to life eternall is suspended upon condition of faith alone But good works are also required of justified men not to constitute a state of justification or demerit life eternall but to yield obedience and testifie thankfulness towards God who justified us freely and hath markt out that way for their walk whom he hath designed for the kingdome of glory How is it (n) Justificatio igitur jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur non ad constituendum statum justificationis aut promerendam vitam aeternam sed ad exhibendam obedientiam testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum qui nos gratuito justificavit atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit then Haec gratia sc inhaerens ut saepe dictum est est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis that again and again as he says himself hath said that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification pag. 317 If he thus interest works in Justification how he will be reconciled to himself where in the passage before quoted he says that They that affirme that man is Justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of Mans salvation in Justification alone to God but ascribe some part to themselves And in all that you quote out of him Pag. 319 c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first and second part of Justification Because having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant concerning the imputation of Christs active obedience in which they scarce differ in termes yet afterwards adds Though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification So that did not the Covenant of grace interpose grosse and wicked waies would cut off our Justification and put us in a state of condemnation If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant which I doubt not may be done this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself Passages of this kind only you quote out of Davenant which are as much opposite to himself as to the Author now mentioned SECT VI. Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace THe next you enter upon is a Query How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant Opposing your self against that Position of mine Chap. 33. Pag. 245. The men in impenitency and unbelief that lie in sin and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ live in a continuall breach of Covenant Here you confesse that I cite no words of yours and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you To which I say that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted which you seem to do Aphor. Thes 34. Pag. 163 Where you say That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken But before I enter upon the thing it self Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God This is clear They that break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if are in Covenant The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise and bâ—each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant Jer. 34.18 The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant and had not performed the words of Covenant And those that thus transgressed Covenant did likewise as wee see there enter into Covenant But these as you affirm break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it Therefore it follows that they are in Covenant And as the Covenant is that they transgresse such the Covenant is that they enter They do not enter one Covenant and transgresse another They transgresse a reall and not equivocall halfe-erring Covenant It is therefore a reall and not an equivocall halfe-erring Covenant that they enter And as this clearly follows from hence so that from you prosition that immediatly goes before it That Christs passive obedience and merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace it clearly follows Universall Redemption overthown That there is no universall Redemption by Christs Death or satisfaction If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace then he died not for the sins of all This is clear But according to you he died not to make satisfaction for their sin that thus stand guilty Therefore he died not for the sins of all Yea it will follow that he dyed for the lesser part only of those that make profession of his name Seeing the greater part die in impenitency and unbelief Yea it will follow that he dyed for the Elect only For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect All others
of Tertullian Cyprian and Austine If so then the doctrine of merit in the highest way as it is now taught in the Châ—â—â—â— of Rome was delivered by the Fathers the oppositioâ—◠〈◊〉 is as notorious a novelty as this of the instrumen◠〈◊〉 â—f Faith or justifying act by you is pretended How high Aquinas is for merit as also his followers all that cast their eyes upon him may soon see And in case in this time a change intervened and a new way be introduced you were not so advised to jumble together so many ages of so different a complexion even Lombard himself was not the same man as Schoolmen that in some ages followed him 2. Whether there be any important change in the doctrine of Justification in the Church of Rome since that time that closeth up your account viz. ann 1400. to this day As I take it their doctrine is substantially the same now as it was in Aquinas his age and some time before him The Council of Trent laid down the same doctrine in this thing that their Doctors had of severall ages held And though they put upon it their sanction yet they made no sensible variation as they expresly declare themselves Sess 6. Cap. 8. And the present Church of Rome rigidly adheres to it It being therefore the same for 1400. years time as the most Antient Fathers taught yea as Christ and his Apostles delivered as afterwards you take the boldnesse to assert and the same now as it was then The doctrine of Rome in the doctrine of Justification is now the same as Christ and his Apostles left it Being faithfully kept by Fathers Schoolemen determined by the Council of Trent now maintained by Jesuites their adhaerents This is too clearly by you implied If it be indeed your thoughts that there is none or very little difference betwixt us and them in this poynt see how much you dissent from your learned friend Mr. Gataker where he tells you in his second letter of that great difference that is between us and the Papists in the Dâ—ctrine of Justification As I heare you bring in the name of reverend Mr. Ball to give honour to this that the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches is one and the same or inconsiderably differing in this of Justification which you speak as you say being so informed and I believe you have heard as much For many years before his death I heard it from an eminent hand and acquainted Mr. Ball with it who with much â—xpression of trouble of Spirit that it should be so voyced disclamed if and afterwards in his Treatise of Faith not then published and his posthumus work of the 〈◊〉 â—nt hath given to the world sufficient testimony agains◠〈◊〉 â—his bâ—uit perhaps gave occasion to that which Mr. Cranâ—â— â—nconsidâ—rately vented and you have so praise-worthily vindicated and I judge it necessary that this of mine own knowledge as being an ear witnesse should be added 3. Whether the Fathers that you mention and others their contemporaries that you do not name were so distinct as might be desired in and about the word Justification and other words of concernment touching this controversie Though as to the thing it self they speak according to the Scriptures when thâ—y speak of Justification Reconcilliation Remission yet so farr as I have read find in the observation of others they too usually confound the word Justification and Sanctification together which you declare your self at least to dislike in others making it not verbum forense as you yeeld it is but rather relating to our inhaerent habituall Righteousnesse whereby we are not pronounced and acquitted as just upon the merit of Christ which otherwise they orthodoxly own but habituâ—lly so and therefore so denominated Being said to be Justified because of unjust we are made just which is the work of Sanctification and implies a reall and not a relative change such as is found in Justification And if some termes of theirs need amendment upon further inquiry into this doctrine then why not others 4. Whether it be the word only when you speak of the instrumentality of Faith or Faith in Christ quà Lord not to be the justifying act or the thing it self that you intend in that so large challenge of yours If it be the want of the words only instrument or quà Lord that you mention your charge is very low upon severall accounts 1. Words of art of this nature are seldome found in the Fathers There are few discourses in them about causes whether Efficient Finall Materiall Formall Instrumentall neither are there any so exact logicall distinctions under what notion they take that which they are upon in their writings Words of this kind were brought in by Schoolemen and little use made of them as I think before Lombards daies Protestant writers finding them in the Church are necessitated to make use of them as well that their adversaries may understand them as with their own weapons to deal with them And the Schoolemen having found another instrument in Justification viz. Baptism as appears â—y the determination of the Council of Trent Sess 6. Cap. 7. it is no marvel that when the Fathers use not the word at all that these do not so use it as it ought according to Scriptures 2. You would be I doubt not as much wanting in making proofe of the use of your own termes among the Fathers as your adversaries of theirs we may find the word instrument and the restrictive particle quà in your twenty six Fathers ascribed to Faith in Justification as oft as you can find your causa sine quâ non or as I think your conditio cum quâ We may likewise find that distinction of fides qua and fides quà which you make the generall cheat as often as you can find your distinctions already examined which Pag. 3. Sect. 1. you heap together When you challenge the words of others as novel it lies upon you to assert the antiquity of your own If it be the thing it self that you challenge as not found in any Authors in this Compasse of time I believe you will not be found so happy in your defence of this provocation as B. Jewell was in the defence of his that he published at Pauls Cross I do not doubt but many Authors in this time ascribe that office to Faith and the whole of it that the Protestant Churches make the instrumentall work and that they assigne the same specificall object of Faith in the work of Justification as is by the Reformed Churches now asserted 5. To acquaint us how many of the Fathers by you mentioned have purposely treated upon particulary spoken to this doctrine of Justification and in what part of their works this subject is by them thus handled that they that do not know it may turn and read it I have a considerable part of those that you mention though some