a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
one many are made righteous 5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the sacrifice of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 6. As Christ frees us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittall from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Acts 13.38 But Christ frees us from the curse in suffering as a sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree I said in my Treatise of the Covenants there are severall acts of justifying saith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-denyal Gideons or Sampsons valour that was their justification but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they and I doubt not but he overtopt them yet he was not thereby justified Here are many exceptions taken 1. At the phrase an act of justification with much ado made to know my meaning when I had thought all had well enough understood it You would fancy that I mean that justification it self acts speaking of it not as an object but an efficient but I must acquaint you that it implies that justification acts when I speak of the acts of justification as it doth that harvest works when I speak of harvest-work I mean acts tending to justifie or exercis'd in or about justification 2. It is demanded Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of justification The proper importance of your words say you is for the former but that say you is a dangerous untruth giving in v. 13. as an exception against it Answ I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith in that indefinite speech of mine which you cannot make necessarily to be universall You have justly made exception of one vers 13. which in my ministeriall way preaching on those words I have interpreted as you say our Divines do It seeâ—s by you that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me 3. You tell me you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideons valour acts of justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean say you that these acts are fruits of faith it is true or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul c. Answ And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith Is not this his error as the former is mine I pray you what was that work of faith that the Apostle mentions 1 Thes 1.3 Faith wrought and acted somewhat 4. You demand what mean you to say obedience and valour was not their justification Answ If no act of faith sano sensu by an ordinary Metonymy may be said to be justification make then a comment upon the Apostles words Rom. 4.3 where to overthrow justification by works and to establish justification by faith he sayes Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness which is as much as it was his justification That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification is not unfitly called justification Faith in Christs blood is such a plea and therefore not unfitly called our justification Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two Then how come you to say next say you that it is Christ's blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification c. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been which is the justifying act of faith and which not And therefore when you denyed those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to find the true act asserted but in stead of that I find the opposite number is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the controversie Whether it be accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt Hâ—re you meet with the greatest advantage that I think in my Treatise you any where find when I say these acts were not their justification and put in opposition but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties but each one may see and some have said that before we read this objection of yours that it is plain that I meant it Sâ—venthly you tell me It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech Answ I believe you think that justifying faith includes in it all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions as Faith Dogmatical or Historical and in all that had the gift of miracles Faith-miraculous They had not one faith whereby they had their interest in Christ and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths and a third whereby they wrought miracles And to say that we are justified by such assent or they by such miracles I think were a speech more then improper You say further That by justifying faith I must mean the act habit or renewed faculty And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts that I should mean the last Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute whether that the acts and habits of mans soul are of so distinct a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same To which I say no more for answer but that I shall take it for granted till I see as yet I do not convincing reason against it Eighthly you tell me that 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelio for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not Justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Answ I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words as to the first branch He was one whose heart as John speaks condemn'd him not but your reason why he was not therby justified is very strange Because say you that it is God onely that is his Judge And thus then the Apostle argues God onely is Judge to justifie But my innocency or integrity is not God Therefore it doth not justifie It seemes that Abrahams works
it never came into the heart of any that is either grave A position by the Author disavowed and detested or godly to utter it and that there is scarce any so witlesse or gracelesse as to beleeve it and so Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reasons five pag. 84 85 86. Twenty six pag. 94 to 107. are almost at one breath answered Few of them tending to oppose any thing that I hold but in the farre greatest part brought against his own conceit and no assertion or opinion of mine I suppose I could easily furnish him with a large addition of reasons to deny this fancy Faith is commanded in the morall Law Reasons evincing that a man unbaptized is bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ to justification as I have asserted Treat of the Covenant pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptisme doth first put a man under such obligation Some Papists do charge upon us that we maintain that Baptism delivers us from the morall Law and therefore the Councel of Trent anathematizeth those that hold it but never any I think were charged to say that Baptisme is our first obligation to it 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavour to avoid damnation but he that believeth not shall be damned 3. He is bound to endeavour to obtain Salvation but we must believe with the heart and confesse with the mouth to Salvation 4. Baptisme presupposeth the Covenant but the Covenant as I have often said engages to believing 5. None can be exempted from believing but they are withall exempted from repentance but unbaptised persons are to repent Act. 17.30 6. Faith in Christ hath been actually required of the unbaptized Act. 16.30 And therefore it is marvell that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly he would spend so much time with me or so many words upon me transgressing the wise mans advice Prov. 26.4 Answer not a fool according to his folly When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Christ for justification before he be baptized I marvel that he would set his wit to mine But what is it that I have said to induce him to think that I am in that opinion I have said The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite in Baptisme and can any man imagine that I meant any more than that it is not required to the being of Baptisme Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the person that is for Baptisme till after he be baptized and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning where I say that there is no necessity that justifying faith go before but a necessity that it must follow after Baptisme further explaining my self It is true that in men of years justifying faith sometimes goes before Baptisme as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necessity required to interest us into a rite either of baptisme or Circumcision and doubtlesse I never thought that either Abraham or any other was justified by that work that was never required at their hand I say justifying faith or grace in the truth of it is no prerequisite in marriage and I further say that a Minister in times past might and a Magistrate at this time may lawfully marry persons void of justifying faith or grace and yet he is no better than a gracelesse man that thinks that persons unmarried are not tyed to faith and godlinesse Grace is no prerequisite to buying and selling A bargain of sail stands firm though there be no grace in them that make the bargain Men without grace may go to Kidderminster to buy hangings and curtains and those of that place may lawfully trade with them and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godlinesse But though my assertion is clear enough yet some may say my similitude darkens it I say No servant is tyed to do his work before he hath received his earnest no Souldier to fight before he be listed The Authors meaning in some mistaken expressions cleared or hath given in his name To this I say If my expressions which I thought were clear well knowing my own meaning yet to others seemed dark no candid man would draw them further then the proposition which my argument was brought to confirm which is That a faith dogmaticall or as I explain it a faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme In my similitude I looked at the resemblance that is between a Souldiers listing a servants entertainment into his Masters service and a Christians Baptisme And as a Souldier is not bound in order to listing first to fight nor a servant in order to his entertainment first to work so a Christian is not bound in order to Baptisme first to believe to justification And thus I fully explained my self in the next page but one That faith which is the condition of the promise is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seales and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelity in warre is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded So that any Reader I think might clearly have seen and I hope now will more fully understand my meaning Having taken notice of Mr. Baxters great mistake and upon it his injurious charge I think it most meet in this place to take notice of another though under another head that so at once I may vindicate my self from things of this nature I say in my Treatise of the Covenant chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is said to be the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant To this Mr. Baxter is pleased to reply When I first read these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my nonsense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Farre was I from imagining that so reverend pious and dear a friend would tell the world in print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote After many other words added If when we are dead men should read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine and there see it written that I said sincerity is the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant can any man blame them to believe it and report of me as from him and say what shall I not believe such and such a man that reports it in expresse words Can any man now think but that I father this upon him Mr. Baxter not injured by the Author as he is injuriously charged and that I report it to the world in print in
it therefore follow that hearing can receive no help from but must exclude seeing Did the Bereans when they had heard the Apostles yet nothing towards faith by their search of the Scriptures Act. 17.11.12 or did they not make use of their eyes in the search that they made When Christ had Preached to the Jewes not yet in the faith and commended to them the search of the Scriptures Joh. 5.39 can we think that this search could be no step in their way of believing Why were miracles wrought if they were of no use to the work of faith f What comment shall we make on those words Joh. 2.23 Many believed in his Name when they saw the miracles that were done If the Word do work faith it will by no means follow but that it may take in assistance by miracles and Sacraments by signes extraordinary and ordinary That consequence if by the Word then not by the Sacrament will never hold till the VVord and Sacrament are proved to be opposite and not subordinate Ninthly That Ordinance which hath neither the promise of the grace of conversion annext unto it or any example in the Word of God of any converted by it is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath no such promise of the grace of conversion neither is there such an example Ergo. Answ For Examples though we could give instances of men being converted by receiving of the Lords Supper yet it would still be denyed to have any possible influence towards conversion as the last Argument is an evident witnesse We bring Examples of men that have been brought to the faith by seeing and yet it is still denyed that fight can be any help towards it And though we could bring a promise of such grace annext yet we should have little hopes to be heard or heeded seeing we can bring a Promise of blessednesse to reading which is by sight as to hearing Rev. 3. Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of this Prophecy 2. We have as many examples of mens conversion by the Sacrament as we have of their receiving strength and nourishment If one may be asserted without an example then then other likewise 3. We have no particular precedents by name except at first institution of any that were Communicants and therefore we cannot expect examples of conversion or receiving of strength by communicating 4. The examples of conversion by the Word perhaps well examined would prove short of such conversion as here is intended The conversion in Gospel narratives is to a Christian profession A man may evince calling thence but not elctdion and this is the work of the Word without the Sacrament seeing it must precede the receiving of the Sacrament As to that of no promise made to it 1. When the adversary shall bring a promise made to the Sacrament for Spiritual strength it will happily be found of an equal force to the giving of a new life 2. Though we have no promise explicite and expresse yet we have promises implicite and virtual Every promise made to the Word is made to the Sacrament The Sacrament being not opposite but subordinate to it an appendant that receives strength from it Tenthly That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake is not a converting Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake Ergo. The Minor is proved 1 Cor. 11.27 Answ This Argument well followed will take off every Ordinance from that honour of conversion as well as this of the Lords Supper seeing many Texts may be produced equally calling for qualifications for them as for this equally shewing the danger of unworthy addresses As to this for hearing the Word see 1 Pet. 2.1 2. Wherefore laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and all evill speakings as new-burn babes desire the sincere milk of the Word that ye may grow thereby Jam. 1.21 Wherefore lay apart all filthinesse and superfluity of naughtinesse and receive with meeknesse the engraffed Word which is able to save your soules Is not the Word a favour of death unto death to such 2 Cor. 2.14 15 16. Shall i. not be more tolerable for Tyre and Zidon then for them Matth. 11.24 For prayer to God see James 1.6 7. But let him ask in faith nothing wavering for he that wavereth is like a wave of the Sea driven with the wind and tossed for let not that man think he shall receive any thing of the Lord 1 Tim. 2.8 I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting Good will never be had by such mens prayers Esay 1.15 And when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you when ye make many prayers I will not hear your hands are full of blood Zach. 7.13 Therefore it is come to passe that he cryed and they would not hear so they cryed and I would not hear saith the Lord of Hosts Shall we now say that neither Word nor prayer is a converting Ordinance But perhaps it will be said Men unworthy must hear must pray to be made worthy must come in unconversion to be converted But they must bring worthinesse hither or else this can have no hand in making worthy they must bring conversion or else this cannot convert This is a begging of the question And as to prayer there is no more ground or colour to make it a converting Ordinance then the Supper we must pray in faith before we can pray with acceptance of our persons and so must the Word be mixt with faith when we hear it Heb. 4.2 Eleventhly That Ordinance which is eucharisticall and consolatory supposeth such that partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given and are such as are fit to be comforted But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance eucharisticall and consolatory Ergo. Answ And might not the Assumption as well have been That the Word and Prayer are Ordinances eucharistical and consolatory I hope none will deny the Gospel our good tydings to be eucharistical and consolatory nor yet thanksgiving which is a branch of prayer And then in case the Proposition be of universal truth both Word Prayer and Lords Supper are excluded from any power of conversion The Proposition then must be understood with limit and restriction That Ordinance which in whole and in part is eucharistical and consolatory can have no hand in conversion and then though perhaps exception might be taken at it it had colour in it But then the Assumption That this Ordinance is in whole and in part eucharisticall and consolatory must be denyed It is for humbling heart-breaking as it is comforting There we shew forth Christs death and see him broken for sin and it is no matter of consolation but humiliation and horrour to see our soules under that guilt that brought upon Christ a
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
Authors no guilt of sin is taken away by Baptisme either in Infants or men of years for either it is pardoned before Baptisme or else a barre in Baptisme is put against the pardon of it If they are regenerate before Baptisme then sin is pardoned before they are baptized In case they are unregenerate when they are tendred to Baptisme then there is a barre put to it Original sin in Infants is mortal otherwise they would be saved without Baptisme as well as in it And sin in the unregenerate is mortal likewise There are therefore barres put by both of these or at least an impediment found and consequently no mans sin is thus remitted upon account of his Baptisme Obj. 2 Secondly It is objected Every Infant is conceived and born in sin ordinarily which David confesses of himself Psal 51.5 Of unclean seed Job 14.4 A child of wrath Eph. 2.3 and held under Original guilt But there is a promise of remission of sin made to the Infant when it is initiated by the Sacrament of Baptisme Repent and be baptized every one of you for remission of sins for the promise is made to you and your children Acts 2.38 39. Answ 1 Answ 1. It was not with good advice that birth-sin confessed by David is in the Major proposition branched out in that latitude as to comprize both uncleannesse and wrath For it makes way for the Assumption to be as large namely that in Baptisme the Spirit is promised and applyed to take away filth as well as blood to deliver from wrath otherwise the remedy doth not answer the malady And so we have more in the conclusion then they would have though no more then is in the premises viz. that in Infant Baptisme there is both remission of sin and regeneration The Infant is thus made both happy and inherently holy Secondly The fruit of Baptisme a right carried on conscience Answ 2 answering to baptismal engagements is indeed forgivenesse of sins But the promise that place mentioned is not remission of sins supposedly to follow upon the act of Baptisme but it is that which did denominate them children of the promise namely the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. and continued to them who were his off-spring which argued them to be yet in Covenant And the Apostle makes use of it as a motive to presse them to accept of Baptisme the present initiating seal of it See this text further spoken to Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 37 43. Thirdly It is objected That which Baptisme figures that Obj. 3 it works otherwise it is a sign that is fallacious But Baptisme figures out remission of sin and the taking away the guilt of it Answ 1. Baptisme also figures out a further work of regeneration Answ 1 and sanctification Rom. 6.4 Col. 2.11 12. 2. This Proposition universally understood without any limits Answ 2 is denied on all hands They that assert this Sacramental work will have it to be with this proviso that no barre be put by the receivers 3. Sacraments do effect what they figure as seales effect what the Covenant conveyes upon Covenant-terms all is effected Answ 3 that in Sacraments is figured The Apostle tells us with what limits this proposition holds 1 Pet. 3.21 4. The great objection is If Sacraments have no other work Obj. 4 upon the soul then by way of sign and seal as they have their influence upon the understanding and faith of the receivers then infant baptisme is uselesse and unprofitable there is no end why they should be baptized seeing there is no work wrought either upon their understanding or faith in this ordinance and so their Baptisme is vain and needlesse And therefore upon this account complaint is made by some friends of Infant Baptisme that the doctrine de nudis signis as it is called making Sacraments bare and empty signes is the ground of Anabaptisme And the greatest sticklers against Infant Baptisme have publickly professed that if that tenent of the opus operatum as we may call it in Sacraments could be clearly proved they would no longer oppose that practice Answ 1. If the doctrine de nudis signis were as is objected Answ 1 the ground of Anabaptisme then I marvel how it comes to passe that that doctrine ceasing Anabaptisme doth not cease with it I read Calvin and others to whom in this I subscribe opposing it I know none that now assert it As soon as Calvin hath done with refutation of one he presently falls upon refutation of this other I here oppose It is hard to say whether he be more zealous against the doctrin de nubis signis Instit lib. 4. cap. 14. Sect. 13. or against this other doctrine of Sacramental efficacy Sect. 14. And Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen cap. 10. Sect. 11. having mentioned that use of Sacraments as distinguishing signs saith y Hic tamen nec solus est finis nec praecipuus Sacramentorum itaque Anabaptistas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus quos etiam ante illum Calvinus refutavit quibus Sacramenta nihil sunt quam signa instituta ad discernendum Christianos à Judaeis Paganis ut Romanis olim toga erat signum quo discernebantur a Graecis palliatis This is not yet alone or chief end of them therefore saith he we oppose Anabaptists as well as Bellarmine and Calvin also before him had refuted them in that they make Sacraments nothing more then signes distinguishing Christians from Jewes and Pagans as a gown sometimes was a sign whereby a Roman was known from a Greek I remember when in the Divinity Schools a respondent in his verses according to custome premised called the signes in the Sacraments surda elementa it may be metri causâ The Dr. of the chair made a sharp animadversion on it They that do not raise them so high as to make them instruments of conveyance of this nature yet do not set them so low as to be naked and empty signs They are not naked though such clothes that every one woul put upon them do not fit them 2. It is no marvel that Anabaptists are ready to offer to come in to us upon these terms when this doctrine is fully cleared being well aware that it never will nor can be proved and so they have a good ground given them to hold on in their opposition Our great revilers of the place of our publick meetings calling them by the name of Steeple-houses or thinking that too gentle Jeroboams calve-houses I doubt not but will promise to forbear that language if it can be clearly proved that they are of divine institution and that they have that holy sanction put upon them as once the Temple had at Jerusalem but when those that put so high an honour upon them rise so high in their elogies and yet fall so low in their proofs they put an argument into their mouthes and as I may say an axe or hammer into their hands to demolish
mentioned in Scripture which is not ascribed also to faith The Spirit mortifies the deeds of the flesh so doth faith Acts 15.9 Devils are cast out by the Spirit of God so they are cast out by faith Mar. 9 The Spirit is our strength in the inward man Ephes 3.16 and faith is our strength 1 Pet. 5.9 Rom. 4.20 All things are possible to the Spirit of God And all things are possible to him that beleeves Mar. 9.23 The Spirits method laid down in the Word is not to work in us respective to salvation after the grace of faith is implanted without us what is ascribed to the one as the efficient is ordinary ascribed to the other as the instrument But these answers he confesses are besides the point This simile might therefore have escaped this quarrel in the two next he will sure then be so punctual that all Readers shall say Rem acu tetigisti 5. It is added When you have laid down one proposition Man cannot justifie himself by believing without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct proposition And God will not justifie an unbelieving man who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justify man unlesse his faith be the instrument of it and do you not seem to imply that man without God doth justifie himself when you say man cannot justifie himself by believing without God No nor with him neither for none can forgive sins but God onely even to another but who can forgive himself I think all is laid down so fairly that were I to lay it down again I should not lay it down in Mr. Baxters words Nor will God justifie a man unlesse faith be the instrument he would then soon have challenged it as a petitio principii seeing it is that which is in question I might have said that God will not justify a man except he disclaim his own righteousnesse and accept of Christs righteousnesse to justification but that which I did say is the same with any friend or fair adversary and so it is a disjunct proposition fairly laid down and I imply that which I speak and if any will have it further expressed God will not justifie man without the concurrence of his faith There followes In deed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the onely man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him It seems by this jest that Mr. Baxter is willing to put off that he is not so good a proficient in Popish mysteries as by Mr Crandon he stands charged otherwise he could not but know that the Pope hath his pardoner as well as others The Pope hath his visible pardoner as well as receivers He gives power for the pardon of sin as the supposed head of the Church by application of the supererogated merits of the Saints together with the merits of Christ out of the treasure of the Church of which he hath the keys Now he sinnes as a man and receives pardon as a Church-member and to that purpose hath his confessor A man as visible as other men And speaking of his sad condition on this supposition he seems to lay farre more stresse on the pardons of Rome then they themselves as though he stood in some eminent danger of hell upon the want of such a pardon when he might know that according to their principles all his danger is an abode some longer time in Purgatory which is their trimming place in the way to heaven For if the pardon find him in a mortal sinne which alone is deserving of hell it is altogether inefficacious mortall sinne puts a barre to the working of it It is the temporal punishment which this pardon remits and not the eternal and in case it were true that this could not be done to the Pope there being none above him his successor with a wet finger can do it for him As to that which was forgotten it had been to his honour if it had never been remembred I forgot saith he that every believer forgiveth himself for I did not believe it Such sarcasmes befit not grave Writers especially when all Reformers to speak in his own language must bear a share in the contumely when they had it in their thoughts in this way to imitate the Apostle in giving all to grace and taking all from man that one would rise out of themselves to make this sport with it It followes 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying doth God effect our Justification by the instrumental efficient causation of our faith If this were my fault yet Mr. Baxter of all men is most unfit to give it in charge other men must have a proof for every word but he himself may heap up distinctions propositions conclusions without any colour of proof at all where is his proof of that which in the last Section number 6. must be remembred and of that great thing num 7. he would desire should be observed I suppose he will have ten to remember and observe before one to believe it Others can see proof and send their Reader hither for proof though he cannot find it My work was to shew that though it be mans act yet God may make use of it as instrumentally serviceable in this work and whether this hath been nakedly said or proved let the dis-interested Reader give his sentence if that which I have said will not satisfie let Mr. Burges be consulted in his late Treatise of Justifica Part 2. I conclude That which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality but where there is a concurrence of agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold To this is answered He that will or can make him a Religion of words or syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an article of his faith what you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate Bona verba bono viro desunt Seeing I find the man in this mood I say no more but seeing he knowes not how to ariolate what I mean by this or that I have no mind to help him in this art of soothsaying and shall let the words stand for their use that bring a mind to understand rather then to exercise their wit to carp at what they read Of the sole sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant as an instrument in justification I shall now leave to the Readers consideration whether Mr. Baxters exceptions against the instrumentality of faith in justification be of that validity as to overthrow it and whether his doctrine of this subject be of that
I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weakned through the flesh c. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification which is not agreed upon among Interpreters to give his Reader satisfaction Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione Quid patitur ut fi at impotens et inefficax Quomodo haec impotentia inefficacia fuit in carne utrum eminenter an formaliter Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem And I doubt not but I may as easily answer his Queries in order to the vindication of my assertion as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers Answering the last all is indeed answered Caro agit injiciendo obices remoras Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis Spiritus agit per fidem ut causa removens impedimentum E medio tollens obices remoras istas Incitando potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life with a satisfying answer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament no otherwise then in preaching the Gospel and when the bare Scripture as Tremelius reads it is of power onely to kill we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit And indeed the Gospel suffers not but the soul in receiving power to answer the Gospels call whether to Justification oâ— sanctification And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power I think will not be denyed seeing the Apostle tells us The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work and he addes Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof adding What though onely believers are justified by the Covenant doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie then either there are no conditions or causae sine quibus non or else they are all efficients and give efficacy and power to other efficients I confesse those words taken by themselves in that sense as he may fancy and the words in themselves may bear will not come up to a full proof Justification may be restrained onely to believers and yet faith have no hand in it but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work some of them speaking of it as Gods instrument Rom. 3.30 most of them as mans we may well then know that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition To others the Gospel-grant lyes dead to these through faith it is effectuall There is added Your terms of faiths giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of conveyance or donation but at its reall operation on mans heart I do look at the act of the Gospel as its real operation on mans heart and yet I look at the right act of it The Gospel is an instrument to justifie by the intervening act of faith according to Protestants and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ and the application of it Redemption is the proper work of the Son but Application they ascribe to the Spirit a Hinc Pater Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam The Father and the Son are said saith Amesius to send the Spirit to perfect this application Medull Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel c. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me and I might expect so much priviledge as to be Master of my own words yet I would have it taken into further consideration whether Divines use his language or mine or whether they judge not that tâ—â—e the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin which I mention The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousnesse of Christ Disp 33. Sect. 21. have these words Sect 24. b Haec applicatio in nobis fit à Spiritu sancto 1 Cor. 6.11 dono scilicet fidei Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur 2 Cor. 3.8 ingenerat ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat auget Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5.5 Unde Spiritus fidei dicitur 2 Cor. 4.13 quâ Deum ut gratiosum Christum ut redemptorem ejusque justitiam ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus Joan. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 This application in us is made by the holy Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 viz. by the gift of faith For he works it by the Ministery of the Gospel which is called the Ministery of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.8 and encreases it by his Word and Sacraments Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith 2 Cor. 4.13 whereby we apprehend God as gracious Christ as Redeemer and his righteousnesse and from it everlasting life Joh. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith Rom. 5.1 Acts 26.18 A parte nostrâ fide Rom. 5.2 Actor 26.18 ex fide per fidem Ro. 3.30 Justistficamur justificat nos Deus By faith and through faith Rom. 3.30 We are justified and God justified us with much more to that purpose And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio speaking of the instrument of justification saith it is either outward or inward c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei Sâ—cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11 ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei nam verbum Dei Sacramenta sunt organa per quae Deus nos vocat per quae operatur conservat ac auget in nobis fidem obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae alii qui docent nos viam salutis Dan. 12.3 The outward instrumental cause he saith is the Word of God and the Sacraments as appears from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousnesse of faith for saith he the Word of God and Sacraments are instruments by which God doth call and by which he works preserves and encreases faith in us and seals in
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
with you are God for you tell us presently that he was justified by them The Apostle indeed addes in the following words He that judgeth me is the Lord But those words have not reference to these now in hand as is plain in the context but to that which he had spoken to vers 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans Judgment yea I judge not mine own self to which these words come in direct opposition But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apostle here argues He that must stand to the Judgment of the Lord may account it a very small thing to be judged of men But I must stand to the Judgment of the Lord Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball quoted by me in this treatise which might be seconded by the authority of severall others and such as he sayth renders the text strong against Justification by works When you have expounded the words as you have done they serve to shut out all works in which Paul ever appear'd from Justification There followes such an inference that you would hardly bear with from another Can you hence prove say you that accepting Christ as a Lord is not the condition of Justification then you may prove the same of the accepting of him as a Saviour It seemes every word in a whole treatise must immediatly of it self formally prove the main thing that is in question It proves that works parallel to Abrahams offering Isaack or leaving of his Country are none such whereby men are justified It fully proves that which the next words seems to disprove I brought in by way of objection that text of James and endeavoured to give some answer to it James 2 24. vindicated James indeed saith that Abraham was Justified by works when he had offered Isaack his Son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 But either there we must understand a working faith with Pisator Paraeus and Penible and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the affirmative The other what faith Justifies Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight infers from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his Son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse How otherwise do these aceord He was Justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was Justified by faith Here are many exceptions taken If James must use the term works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usuall as if he had fore-seen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must believe that by works James doth not mean works it would prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is Answ First it seemes the difficulty of interpretation is supposed when the word is used 12 times so near together otherwise I doubt not but your self wil confesse a necessity of interpretation of this kind which yet you would be loath to have branded with such absurdity Secondly If I durst take the liberty that others assume the doubt were easily solved and say that Paul speakes of a reall Justification James of an equivocall which interpretation would far better suit here then else where A dead faith is fit to work a dead Justification and such as carries as full resemblance to Justification in truth as a dead corps doth of a living man Thirdly were you to interpret that of David Psal 22.6 I am a worm and no man I think you would so interpret it as to make him a man and no worm But to leave Metaphors Metonymies frequent in Scripture and come to the Metonymies of this kind How frequently are such found in Scripture which inforce us to say that not to be in strict Propriety of speech what Scrippture saies is He hath made him to be sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 When yet we must say he was not made sin an entity cannot be made a non ens or meer privation He was made then an atonement for sin a sin-offering as we say a Metonymy of the Adjunct These died in faith having not received the promises Heb. 11.13 They had received the promises Rom. 9.4 It is a contradiction to say They died in the faith and had not received the promise It is taken there for the land promised a Metonymy of the Object When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him Matth. 2.3 Jerusalem was not troubled It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled by a Metonymy of the Subjâ—ct This is the Will of God even your Sanctification 1 Thes 4.4 and this was not voluntas Dei but res volita not the Will of God but the thing willed by a Metonymy of the Cause A Thousand more of these might be named which yet are as well understood as we understand each others common Language 2. Do but read say you over all the severses put working faith instead of works trie what sense you will make Answ Here is implyed that As works are taken in some of these verses So they must be taken in all If there be no Metonymy in all then there is no Metonymy in any As one so all are to be understood But if you please to consult Gomarus in his vindication of those words of Christ Matth. 23.27 Com. 1. Pag. 110.111 One and the same word is often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Infirma est haec consequentia nititur enim falsa hypothesi quasi ejusdem verbi repetitio semper eundem sensum postularet cum contra pro circumstantiarum ratione saepe diverso sensu accipiatur quem admodum illustria ex empla demonstrant You will find frequent instances where the same word in the self same place or verse must be taken in a different sense in one properly and in the other figuratively Interpreting those words O Jerusalem Jerusalem of the heads and leaders of the people of Jerusalem there lies an objection against him that in Luk. 13.33 the words immediatly before are It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem where the word Jerusalem is taken for the City it self and not for the heads and leaders of the people He answers This consequence is weak For it is built upon a false ground as though the repetition of the same word should also enforce the same sense when contrawise according to the circumstance of the place it may be taken in a different sence as many illustr ous examples make manifest Instancing in Joh. 3.17 God sent not his Son into the world to condemne the world
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
Then works do not consummate for Paul casts off all works from this office and he speaks according to you of Justification in toto and if James speaks of it only as consummate and finished why does he instance in Rahab this being the first that was heard of her being in faith or grace The Authors that you follow are wont to say that Paul speaks of the first and James of the second Justification and it had been more for your advantage fully to have followed them then to have said that Paul speaks principally of the first yet speaks of the second likewise Yet you may see how hardly those of that opinion have been put to it Bellarmine that knows as well how to stickle for an opinion as another says that Paul speaking of the first Justication fetches a proof from Abraham which is understood of the second Justification and James speaking of the second Justification fetches a proof from Rahab which is the first Justification which as long since I have observed in the vindication of this text agrees like harp and harrow So that if the Authors that I follow have missed the meaning of these Apostles those that follow you are much lesse like to find it Yet after all this labour for a Reconciliation of this seeming difference between these great Apostles the Reader stands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you where we see in what judgement he both liv'd and died taking it up as he saies when he was a novice and persisting in it to his last wholly differing from you and agreeing with me In Paul the question is saith he of sin in generall concerning which when any man shall be therewith charged there is no means whereby he may be justified that is justly assoyled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner but by his faith in Christs blood Christs blood having made satisfaction to Gods Justice for sin and his faith in it giving him a right to it and interest in it This he understands of all sin through the whole course of a believers life first and last faith is his way of Justification Whereas in James saith he the question is concerning some speciall sin and the questioned persons guilt of it or freedome from it What speciall sin he means he explaines himself to wit Whether a man be a true or counterfeit believer a sound and sincere or a false and feigned professor In which case any person that is so wrongfully charged may plead not guilty and offer himself to be tryed by his works as in some cases Gods Saints have done even with appeal to God himself And what differs this from what I say onely the faith that is not counterfeit but evidenced by works justifies The truth of his faith is questioned whensoever the sincerity of his profession is thus charged This is no more then that which is ordinarily affirmed that faith justifies the person and works justifie faith 4. You say The ordinary exposition of the word faith Jam. 2.24 vindicated If with the named Expositors you understand by works a working fâith either you grant as much as I affirme in sense or else you must utterly nul all the Apostles arguing from v. 13. to the end Answ It were too tedious to follow you through this large discourse and you very well save me the paines when you adde I suppose you will say Faith which Justifies must be working but it Justifies not quâ— operans And so indeed I do say and you answer true nor quà fides i. e. qâ—à apprehendit objectum if the quà speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification To this I say If it neither Justifies quà operans nor quà apprehendens objectum I would fain know how or under what notion it justifies Do's it justifie nihil agendo I may well say Cedo tertium If you say as I think you will it justifies quà conditio Is it conditio nec operans nec apprehendens A faith neither working nor receiving is certainly as bad as the faith that James speaks of that profits nothing You demand further Why cannot faith Justifie except it be working I answer Because if it be faith to apprehend or receive then it is in life for if not alive it cannot receive If it be alive then it doth work You say The Apostle doth not plead for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medii ad Justificationem Even that Justification which he calls imputing of righteousness and that by God I answer He enquires what that faith is that is medium ad Justificationem and determines that it is not a dead but a working faith that is this Justifying medium and this strengthens and not nuls the Apostles argumentation When you have made it your business to overthrow my interpretation you set upon my reason and say As for your single argument here I answer And I may reply 1. That one argument to the purposâ— is to be preferred before 31 which are all besides the qâ—estion 2. That you might have found a double argument but that you industriously leave out one to make it single You say it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by works means not works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture And I hope I may without offence tell you tht this kind of reasoning or answering adds advantage neither to your cause nor reputation You take it for granted and would perswade your Reader that if I suppose the word is once figurative where the proper acceptation is both destructive to the sense and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Gospel which was my second reason by you omitted that I must therefore so interpret it all along But you have had Scripture instances to the contrary and are directed where you may be further furnished I conclude that when James affirms that faith without works is dead and therefore cannot justifie ad sayes Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac which Scripture says was a work of faith of if that do not please was done by faith Heb. 11.17 and further sayes that in his justification by works the Scripture was fulfill'd which sayes he was justified by faith Is it not a fair interpretation to understand a working faith which is alone of possible power to justifie when the Scripture also ascribing this instanced justifying work of Abrham to the faith of Abraham as we see Heb. 11.17 In the close of your ten arguments you speak your sense of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenent which I have thought most meet to reserve to this place What sad effects say you it may produce to
wish we could as well agree upon a definition It would be an endlesse work to reckon up and it would no lesse then tyre the Reader to read all the definitions of a Sacrament which may be found among those that treat of this subject Bellarmine reckons up six severall definitions of those that either really are or at least he would have to be of his party Two of which he saies are gather'd out of Austin the third is from Hugo de Sancto Victore the fourth is from the Master of the sentences the fifth is the definition of the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent and the last he sayes is found with Gratian. Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere Cap. 11. And Cap. 13. he names two others one of Scotus and the other of Occam which he saies Chemnitius blames with the other yet Cap. 14. observing a great difference among us as he saith in our definitions of a Sacrament saith it is an evident argument that we are departed from the truth which is one when his own party can keep the truth and differences with it Whitaker confesseth that Luther Melanccton Chemnitius Martyr do differently define a Sacrament but all their definitions he saith come to one He rests in the definition that Calvin gives lib. 4. Institut Cap. 14. which he defends against the objections of Bellarmine who spends the whole sixteenth chap. of his book against it And a definition indeed singularly exact But seeing the Spirit of God himself hath furnished us with a definition of a Sacrament which either explicitely expresseth or virtually comprizeth all that according to Scriptures can be required in a Sacrament I suppose that will carry most authority and this the Apostle delivers Rom. 4.11 And he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith This Whitaker saies a Haec brâ—vis ac perspicua definitio Sacramenti est ut mihi videtur Primo enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro genere ponitur hoc est Signum externum aut ceremonia Deinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est sigillum justâ—tâ—ae quae ex fide scilicet est rem Sacramenti finem usum d clarat Ut si possemus esse Scripturis contenti non meliorem definitionem desideraremus is a plaine and brief definition of a Sacrament and if we could be content with the Scriptures we should not desire a better Praelect de Sacram. Cap. 2. pag. 3. See Parcus on the words The adversaries quarrells he saith hath forced Divines to look out further but I think we shall best stoppe their mouths in holding fast to the letter of Scripture And this is therefore my Resolution And Peter Martyr on Rom. 4. sayes I Scarce think there is any place in which the nature of Sacraments is so briefly and explicitely laid down as in those words of Paul in which Circumcision is called a seal But before I come to the opening of this definition which may seem scarce full in case we look only to that which is explicitely delivered I must take out of the way some objections made against it First It is plausibly objected that this is a definition of Circumcision onely in particular Vix puto ullum extare locum quo tam breviter tam explicite natura Sâ—cramentorum proponitur quam his Pauli verbis quibus circumcisio vocatur signatum and therefore can be no definition of a Sacrament in generall The collection is not sound from the species to the Genus If man be defined by reason or risibility it will not follow that Animall every creature with life may be so defined First Objections against this dâ—finition To this Pareus in his answer to the sixth doubt on Rom. 4 sayes b Quod omni Specâ—ei ine st toti generi recte tribuitur Sicut igitur valet Homo Equus quodvâ—s animal sentit movetur sensus ac motus differentia sy statica generis recte dâ—citur sic valet Circumcisio Pascha quod vis signum foederis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addita foederi obsignation is causa Ergo omne signum foederis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justitiae fidei hoc pro generica differentia Sacramentorum recte habetur That which belongs to every species is rightly applyed to the Genus that which belongs to every particular is justly applyed to all universally A man A horse and every other Creature of an animal life is sensible moves c. and therefore it is rightly said that every animal is sensible and moves so it is rightly said that the Passeover the Lords Supper and every other Sacrament is as a sign which adversaries confesse so a seal of this righteousnesse and therefore that which is said by the Apostle of this Sacrament in particular is true of all in generall Secondly I say the Apostle mentions there nothing properly to Circumcision as distinguishing it from other Sacraments all that is in the definition with equall reason belongs to all Sacraments as well as to Circumcision and distinguishes them onely from other Ordinances what is said of Abraham in this text might be applyed to the Eunuch or the Jaylour changing alone the name of Circumcision into Baptisme He received the sign of Baptisme a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith that he had being unbaptized Secondly It is further objected by Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacramentis Cap 17. and after him by others that Circumcision is not here said to be a seal universally to any faith but only a seal of the individuall faith of Abraham and then it can neither be a definition of a Sacrament in the generall nor yet a definition of Circumcision the distinct species of it which is cleere in that it is expressely said that it was a seale of the righteousnesse of the faith that he had being yet uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that beleeve But onely Abraham could be such a father and therefore Abrahams Circumcision not every mans is here held forth This I have fully answered Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 26. pag. 187 188. in my assertion of the purity of the Old Covenant and therefore I shall not now stand to repeat Thirdly It is objected this will ill agree to the Circumcision of others that after Abraham did receive this Sacrament It cannot be fairely said that Isaac received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised seeing he was not in the faith till after Circumcision and that is no definition of Circumcision that agrees not to all mens Circumcision that is no definition of the species that agrees not to every individuum Answ Neither is it needfull that that additionall particle which is proper to Abraham as a leading person in the Covenant to enter into it should agree to all mens Circumcision He was in the faith and had it sealed Isaac was
confederate with him in Covenant and was upon that account to be circumcised which engaged to actual faith and upon actual believing it sealed this righteousness of faith to him This precedency of faith is a separable adjunct and comes not into the definition To make the definition full and clear the whole text of the Apostle is to be taken into consideration with the context and all that in the History Gen. 17. to which it relates hath relation to it all which is vertually in the words comprized where we may observe 1. The Person receiving or by right interessed 2. The thing received 3. The end or use 4. The thing signified or sealed The Person receiving or by right interessed is Abraham and giving and receiving being relatives as Pareus on the words observes if Abraham received it it is necessarily implyed that there is some one that gave it Christ sayes Joh. 7.22 Moses gave Circumcision to the Jewes because he delivered unto them a Law concerning it Levit. 12.3 but God gave it in charge to Moses as we may see there vers 1. as Gen. 17.9 10. he had before given it in charge to Abraham And therefore Christ saith that Circumcision was of the Fathers God is then the author as Abraham the receiver of Circumcision Abraham that thus received Circumcision from the hand of God may be considered 1. As a man so he stood in no other relation to God then barely as his creature and with others in the world was without God and not within the verge of his Covenant and for seventy and five years he thus continued 2. As a professor of the faith and worshipper of the true God renouncing the gods that he had worshipped in Charran and professedly serving the Lord Jehovah onely 3. As a man upright and sincere in the Covenant comming up to the termes proposed of God and walking perfect before him In all of these capacities Abraham may be considered as any other of the sons of Abraham that are sincere and faithful In the first capacity he had no right to Circumcision all that are in that condition are called by the Apostle Circumcision yet it was not of necessity to his interest in the Covenant or Circumcision the signe and seale of it to be sincere in Covenant though it be necessary to the attainment of the grace of the Covenant and mercy sealed in the Sacrament As others came into Covenant and were intitled to the initiating sign and seale so might Abraham but others came in upon a bare profession as those multitudes of Proselytes that joyned themselves to Israel One of which was Doeg an Edomite 1 Sam. 21.9 had he not been of Israel by profession he had not been detained in the Sanctuary before the Lord upon any religious account as we find he was ver 7. And had he been right in the Covenant he had not had so many things in charge against him neither had the Psalmist spoken in that language that we read of him The Eunuch as we have cause to think had an heart right with God but it was not so with Simon Magus as Peter expresly tells him Act. 8.21 Abraham then is considered as a man professedly in Covenant when he received this sign of Circumcision The thing received is here Circumcision which I shall speak to onely as of a Sacramental kind and not consider it in the individual nature of it as the initiating Sacrament of the Old Covenant held out under that external rite of cutting off the foreskin of the flesh The use of it is to be a sign and seal for signification and ratification to those that received it The thing signified and sealed is the righteousnesse of faith so it is also called Heb. 11. Elsewhere it is called the righteousnesse of God Rom. 10.3 being freely given to us of God and onely able to justifie us in his sight but chiefly because it is wrought by Christ who was not meer man nor barely a creature but the true God as St. John stiles him 1 Joh. 5.20 This righteousness of God is applyed to us and made ours by faith Phil. 3.9 and therefore as it is called the righteousnesse of God so also here and elsewhere the righteousnesse of faith This text being thus cleared a full and compleat definition of a Sacrament may be found The definition of a Sacrament A Sacrament is a sign appointed of God to be received of his Covenant-people to seal the righteousnesse of faith unto them I know there is somewhat put into the definition of a Sacrament by some that treat of this subject which is not here in words exprest and therefore upon that account this definition may be challenged as defective as 1. The Minister by whom it is to be dispensed from God to man But whether this be essential in a Sacrament or otherwise as afterwards is to be enquired into it is sufficiently implyed In case it must be received from God by his people in that way and from that hand that he himself in his Word hath appointed 2. The Sacraments contain as well a profession of our duty towards God as Gods tender and seal to man of which here is nothing said But this we shall find both in the sign and seal which are both mentioned necessarily included and as it appears that it is comprized so to make it more clear and explicite it may by the Reader be added CHAP. V. Sect. I. Of Sacramental signes I shall here purposely wave several Schoole-niceties as in what predicament a Sacrament is to be placed Taking it in the whole nature of it as consisting of a twofold matter the one outward and earthly which is the visible signe the other inward and heavenly which is the thing signified and of a twofold forme one outward which is the due participation of it according to the way prescribed of God the other inward consisting in the analogy between the signe and the thing signified it must needs be an Ens aggregatum and so not capable of any place in that series of being And signe and seale being clearly relatives I shall leave the Reader to informe himself from learned Keckerman in the third Book and eighth Chapter of his Systeme of Philosophy what is the Relatum the Correlatum the relation it self the foundation and the terminus in this Sacramental consideration and shall go on to lay open the several parts of this definition The whole of it being comprized in this text of the Apostle every part affords some doctrinal Observation In the first place I shall observe that Sacraments are signes The truth of this observation is so clear of it self that it needs no proof Taking the word Sacrament in the largest sense that we can speak of it in which it falls short of these Gospel-Ordinances known by that name it is yet Sacrae rei Signum the sign of an holy thing And might be made good by a particular induction not only in those
baptized the Reader can scarce imagine this I impute to haste or passion preventing or obstructing the use of reason He must then blot out Christian nomine tenus and insert instead of it an Heathen Jew or Pagan otherwise he is already a baptized person and in incapacity for baptisme by the power of the Word preached brought to renounce his way of Paganisme Judaisme and to professe and engage to a Christian faith and conversation These are the men that I would have baptized and if we must account them to be dogs and swine all Scripture-baptizers are within the lash they have given baptisme to them That repentance as well as faith was required in baptisme appeares saith he by the ages following the Apostles yea and in the Apostles time likewise A profession of both was indeed required they that renounced heathen worship renounced heathen conversation with it They engaged to a Christian faith and they engaged to a Christian conversation Mr. F. addes For those who would live in their lusts they deferred their baptisme knowing what that required I have read of the deferring of baptisme in those times and the reasons assigned why they put it off But I have not met with this reason Mr. Marshall in his defence of Infant-Baptisme hath given many reasons why some put off baptisme Some to be baptized at the age that Christ was baptized Some to be baptized in the river where he was baptized Some to be baptized by some special Bishop of eminent place Some which it seems was most common because they conceived that it takes away all sin and therefore they would have it delayed till sin was well over for which he quotes many authorities Tertullian it appears would have it delayed upon this ground seeing he would not have unmarried persons baptized but to stay till lust were extinguished and disswading from baptisme in younger years he hath these words Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum de baptis cap. 18. Yet perhaps some might delay it upon the account that he mentions though he quotes no authority for it but that Tertullian and Nazianzen intimate it one of whom was for delaying of baptisme in the place quoted the other against it as I find him cited But in case any did delay it upon the grounds by him mentioned might it not be their fault that did administer it in keeping the door too narrow as well as their sin who put off the time of it seeing Mr. F. himself complains of the rigour of some in New-England in holding men off from entrance into Church-fellowship by that door which is set up in the room and place of baptisme Mr. Firmin as well in his Serious question stated as in his Appendix against me vouches many authorities first Presbyterians instancing in his margine Lond. Min. Jus Div pag. 115. But in my book that page hath no such thing Gillespies Aarons Rod quoting many pages I can recompence him in setting up some of the Congregational way against him Mr. Gillesp will not have a known unregenerate man baptized But Mr. Cobbet saith John did and might lawfully baptize those multitudes albeit in the general he knew that many yea most of them would prove false and frothy And makes visibility of interest in the Covenant the Churches guide in application of Baptisme pag. 52. And how large a visibility of interest is is cleer and I have already shewen Let his words before quoted be considered and to these adde that which he hath pag. 54 55. The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather The seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and offered in the Covenant yea to the Covenant it self or promise which he had believed unto righteousnesse hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. Hence Acts 2.38 39. the seal of baptisme is put to the promise as the choyce matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it self Repent and be baptized for the promise is to you Not for you have repented as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptisme but the promise rather Appendix pag. 57. Mr. Firmin quotes in the Lump the Fathers Councels School-men out of Gregory de Val. as if all were of that mind In his Serious question he quotes Austin Alexander Hales Aquinas Gregory de Valen. In his appendix Justin Martyr Concil Naeocesar Concil Nic. Concil Elib as strict in admission of their Catechumeni concerning which I might have much to say First How would he like it in other things to leave the clear rode and track of Scriptures to hunt after humane authorities If we can but say From the beginning it was not so In case the authorities were more in number more eminent in honour we have sufficient The Scripture-way taking in those that the Word had brought to a profession of Christianity upon engagement to it is as clear as though it were written with a ray of the Sun Secondly For Fathers and Schoolmen their opinion about Baptisme on which they ground the necessity of praerequisites to it is known and as he may quote them against me so I can quote them against him and those of his party They maintain and as unanimously as they do the thing in debate that Sacraments confer grace on the receiver in case he put no obstacle on which account they expect not grace in the person for baptisme which they believe not to be possible seeing the Sacrament is to work it but a convenient disposition to grace which they call merit ex congruo Let Suarez speak in the name of the rest having laid down this Proposition d Ut alicui digne detur baptismus praeter voluntatem suscipiendi Sacramentum necessaria est dispositio conveniens sanctitati Sacramenti That Baptisme may be worthily administred besides a willingnesse to receive the Sacrament a disposition suitable to the holinesse of the Sacrament is required And then answering the question What this disposition is he answers e Resp Eam sufficere necessariam esse quae ad consequendum effectum Baptismi fuerit sufficiens ac necessaria quia cum per baptismum detur gratia si aliquis est recte dispositus ad effectum baptismi consequendum in instanti quo receperit baptismum perfectum recipiet gratiam Ergo cum sufficienti dignitate sanctitate recipit Sacramentum Quia cum hoc sit Sacramentum mortuorum non est ad illud digne suscipiâ—ndum prae exigenda gratia ad quam conferendam ipsum est constitutum Ergo sufficiet illa dispositio cum qua Sacramentum conferet talem effectum That is necessary and sufficient which is necessary and sufficient to attain the effect of the Sacrament and gives
his reason seeing by baptisme grace is given If any one be rightly disposed to receive the effect of baptisme in the instant that he receives perfect Baptisme he shall receive grace therefore he receives the Sacrament with sufficient dignity and sanctity further adding Seeing this is a Sacrament of the dead grace is not praerequired for the receiving of it being ordained to confer grace that disposition is sufficient upon which the Sacrament confers such an effect Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. Tom. 3. Q. 68. Dis 24. art 4. Sec. 2. p. 250. Our opinion being otherwise of the work of baptisme it is otherwise concerning admission to baptisme when men are willing to be received into the number of Christians and will engage for Christian wayes which necessarily implies a profession of repentance of all unchristian practices we judge them to have right of admission Thirdly How far rules laid down by some Fathers and Councils for the way of discipline did exceed in rigour hath been the complaint of many not admitting those that had been overtaken by temptation to Church-fellowship notwithstanding any evidence of repentance till after many years space of humiliation In which time how much advantage might be given to Satan let men of experience judge Mr. F. himself dislikes their long deferring of their Catechumeni from baptisme and may not others have liberty to manifest their dislike as well as he Fourthly Let it be taken into due consideration whether such rigour in holding converts off so long a space and requiring such an height in preparatory graces were not a great remora to the progresse of the Gospel and gaining in men to Christian profession How speedy a progresse the Gospel made in the Apostles times we may see in the Acts of the Apostles and Ecclesiastical Story Dr. Andrewes in his Preface to his Work on the Commandements quotes a testimony of Egesippus That by the diligent instructing of the Church there was no known Common-Wealth of any part of the world inhabited but within 40 years after Christs Passion received a great shaking off of heathenish Religion But how slowly it proceeded after some time is over-plain May not the difference of their way that thus swerved from the Apostles and men in Apostolique times be assigned as a great reason We find them facile in admission but in the mean time exceeding plain in making known what was required of them in order to the end of their professed faith their everlasting salvation that were admitted Fifthly If it may be granted which according to Scripture rules can never be denied that men wrought off from Turcisme Paganisme Judaisme and brought to a profession of Christianity and a professed engagement to Christian wayes have their right and stand in title to baptisme If then upon observation of inconveniences arising as jealousies conceived that they may offer themselves out of design to work themselves into a fairer opportunity of persecution as was suspected in Paul the Church in Prudence for some space shall delay their admission I shall not contend Onely I assert their right and justifie their practice that proceed accordingly and unlesse some great cause appear to the Churches prejudice tendring themselves they are actually to be received A Digression for Vindication of Chap. 32. of the Treatise of the Covenant from Mr. Baxters Exceptions touching the Faith that entitles to Baptisme HEre I am put upon it to take into consideration The occasion of this Digression that which Learned Mr. Baxter in his Apology hath been pleased to oppose against me Though he be large I shall make it my businesse if it may be to be more brief I entitled the two and thirtieth Chapter of my Treatise of the Covenant in this manner A dogmatical Faith entitles to Baptisme being a Corollary naturally as I yet think inferred from the Doctrine that I had before delivered of the latitude of the Covenant explaining my self that I meant such a faith that assents to Gospel-truths though not affecting the heart to a full choyce of Christ and therefore short of that Faith which is justifying and saving ratifying it with several arguments In which I might well have thought that I should have found my ancient friend my Second rather then an Adversary considering what he had delivered pag. 224. of his Treatise of Infants Church-Membership This opinion Mr. Baxters concession that the Covenant of grace which Baptisme sealeth is onely to the Elect and is not conditional is one of the two master pillars in the Antinomian fabrick and afterwards If any shall think that this affirming that Christ hath brought the reprobate also into a Covenant of grace conditional be any part of the Arminian errors as the whole scope of Scriptures is against them so Mr. Blake hath said enough to satisfy He that will deny reprobates to be so farre within the Covenant of grace must not onely denye infant Baptisme but all Sacraments till he be able infallibly to discern a man to be Elect. I did never rise so high in words for my opinion as the Reader may here see my adversary hath done for me and I shall have more occasion to observe his concessions in this thing But how to reconcile all with that which pag 327. of the same Treatise he delivers I know not If men be taught once that it is a Faith short of justifying and saving faith which admitteth men to Baptisme as having true right in foro Dei it will make foul work in the Church This he asserts with five several arguments to which in the Chapter quoted I gave a brief answer not once naming the Author that if it might be such contests with a man that I so much honour might not have been observed and yet the truth not deserted Before he enters upon any refutation of my arguments or vindication of his own he is pleased to spend nine full pages to shew how farre he takes unregenerate men to be in Covenant and to discover as he saies my mind in this point Neere to the close of that discourse he saies that what I mean by Covenanting he despairs to know which surely will be the Readers wonder that knowes what he hath said pag. 224. before mentioned I speak impartially according to my judgement I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book in opening of the Covenant then in all c. And as he despaires to know my meaning so I as much despair ever to make it known to him He quotes very many expressions of mine and knowes my meaning in none of them and some that I borrow from others as Dr. Preston and Pareus and he knowes neither my meaning nor theirs in them And in case I should make attempt if it might be to make it further clear he hath still an art to render it obscure He observes that I say that which I think all say that the accepting of the word preacht
spoken of and that is before Baptisme I have answered that this is the weakest of all Arguments to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture and gave divers Instances not needful to repeat Upon which Mr. Baxter confesseth there may be an Hysteron Proteron and then if Hysterons and Proterons be any a thing to our present purpose it rests upon him to prove that here is none 2. I know not how this figure of Rhetorick came to be talked on I think no such thing is here to be asserted So I should say Baptisme doth alwaies lead and Faith follow I onely said that all that can be collected hence is that in Gods ordinary way of conferring salvation we must have both Faith and Baptisme though as our Divines have generally observed against the Papists there is not one and the same kind of necessity which they confirm by the words that follow If Mr. Baxter will contend for an exact order then he must say that Faith alwaies precedes and never followes after Baptisme against the common observation that sometimes it precedes sometimes it accompanies sometimes it followes and he must also say that without inversion of a Divine order no baptized man can be converted to a Faith that is justifying And then he may preach in England to build up Converts but not to convert or at least when he hath converted he must baptize his convert the seal is null that goes before a Covenant I gave instance in that place of Peter 1 Pet. 3.21 where the restipulation or answer of a good conscience followes upon Baptisme affirming that justifying Faith is that restipulation or at least a principall branch of it and therefore there is no necessity that it should precede but a necessity that it should follow In which I did not imply that a man before Baptisme may not believe as I gave instance in Abraham to the contrary but that it tyeth him to the faith at least to follow after Mr. Baxter saith I gratefully accept your Concession that justifying faith is that restipulation which is your Minor that is justifying faith professed and thence I conclude that justifying faith is essential to the Mutual Covenant and so without it God is not in Covenant with men It is very well worth our enquiry how this can follow which is thus made good Who knowes not that ever read Civil Law that there is no stipulation sine promissione which you call and so do other Divines Restipulation And that this Restipulation is an essentiall part of the Contract called stipulation This being past doubt it followes that justifying faith being our Restipulation is an Essential part of the Contract or Baptismall Covenant They onely it seems that have read the Civil Law can see a necessity of this Conclusion I and other Divines call this promise Restipulation and I though other Divines do not say that justifying faith is this Restipulation or promise And so the Promise being essential Faith is essential to our being in Covenant likewise But can Mr. Baxter think that it is the Promise or Restipulation strictly so called or that I so intended it then this is a true Proposition justifying faith is a Promise can any think that I ever intended so egregious a peece of affected nonsense Justifying faith with me is the thing promised or that to which we restipulate Who that hath read Rhetorick or heard any man speak doth not know that the promise is ordinarily put for the thing promised and then the Conclusion will follow the clean contrary way If you could prove out of the Civil Law or elsewhere that there is no Pollicitatio sine Praestatione that every man that enters Covenant eo nomine makes good his Covenant Then you hit the nayl on the head and till that is done you have done nothing Arg. 3. reviewed Mr. Baxters third Argument is That faith to which the promise of remission and justification is made must also be sealed to or that faith which is the Condition of the promise is the condition in foro dei of the title to the seal But it is onely solid true faith which is the condition of the promise of remission In what sense faith is the condition of the Promise Therefore it is that which gives right in foro Dei to the seal To this I have answered faith is not sealed to but remission of sins or Salvation upon condition of faith and when I come to speak of the sealing of Sacraments I shall God willing make this more evident that the Sacrament qua seal immediately respects our priviledges and not duties and I referre the Reader thither When I say a professor of faith may ingage to a lively working faith I am followed with this Dilemma You mean either a professor of that lively faith or a professor of a dead not working faith If the first it is a contradiction to say he professeth to have a lively faith and he onely ingageth so to believe hereafter For if he professe to have it already then he can ingage onely to the continuation and not to the inception of it If you mean the latter then I shall shew you anon that a man professing a dead not working faith is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptisme to believe lively for the future inceptivè and to believe for the future with a working faith I shall first second this dilemma with another of like nature and then answer He that thus professeth to have a lively faith either professeth it knowingly so that he is assured that he speaks the truth or with haesitations doubts and fears so that he questions the truth of all that himself saies The latter doubtlesse can give no title according to Mr. Baxter For a man to professe and remain wholly uncertain of the truth of such profession can give no such title as is required if the former be intended that every man professing must know the truth of his profession then none that are below assurance that in present they savingly believe have any right to Baptisme and then you see how high we are gone Some think it is too much to require a full assurance of Grace from all that enter or are allowed to possesse their places in the Ministery much more of all that enter into Christianity For a direct answer I therefore say It is not profession to say that we have this faith but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it with ingagement to it that gives this title There followes You suppose then such a professor as this coming to Baptisme saying Lord I believe that thou art God alone and Christ the onely Redeemer and the Holy Ghost the guide and sanctifier of thy people and that the world flesh and devil is to be renounced for thee but at present there are lusts so deare to me that I will not forsake them for thee
and takes to other objects that is to me sufficient Or will it follow that either the Eunuch did or must necessarily be presumed to understand upon that little acquaintance that it seems he yet had in the Gospel the whole of those choyce observations or can it be any way certainly collected that such a Confession that he made was accompanied with a present saving work But Mr. Baxter hath singularly engaged me to him quoting those Texts John 11.25 26 27. John 1.49 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 he addes Here is more then right to Baptisme Then a man may have right to Baptisme that is short of those great priviledges of dwelling in God and being born of God and I scarce know what to say more for my own opinion It further followes If you think as you seem by your answer to do that a man may assent to the truth of the Gospel with all his heart and yet be void of justifying faith you do not lightly erre It followes not I think from any thing that I have said that I am in any such opinion That Expression is in Philips words and I have told you he might require de bene esse that which is not necessary to the esse of Baptisme But in case I be in any so heavy an Error I am thus holpen out of it Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the regenerate yet not with all his heart Christ saith Matth. 13. The Word hath not rooting in him It is then granted that he may believe all truths and that which is added to prove that he cannot believe them with his whole heart is not with me convincing The Word had not root not because they did not intirely from the heart assent to it But because they received it not in the love of it They received the light to inform their judgments not any thorow heat for the warmth of their affections There followes Doubtlesse whether or no the practical understanding do unavoidably determine the will yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the will unsanctified which must be said if the dogmatical faith that is the Intellectual assent of a wicked man be as strong as that of a true believer Here is suggested that I say that the Intellectual assent of a wicked man is as strong as that of a true believer I know not where I have said it or any thing that implies it It may be a true assent though not of that strength But if I had said it will it thence follow that God doth sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the will unsanctified I trow not Is every strong Intellectual assent sanctified is every Intellectual assent which is of equal strength with that in the regenerate truly sanctified Clearnesse of light commands assent to truths when corruption of affections will not suffer that at least pro hic nunc that the goodnesse or bestnesse if I may so say should be believed I believe it is as strong in the Devils as in any Regenerate man in the world I know not how it fares with some whom God may exercise more gently respective to temptations and Satans Buffettings I am sure that there are those that would sometimes freely give up all that is dear to them in the world to be as clear in some fundamental truths as Satan himself he doubtlesse injects Scruples where himself is without scruple I know some question whether there be any such thing as faith in divels notwithstanding James saith The Devils believe and tremble But certain it is there is an Intellectual assent to Divine truth in the Devils as we may see Matth. 8.29 Mark 3.11 Luk. 4.41 Acts 19.15 and yet there is no sanctification wrought And therefore though the wicked match the regenerate in assent in their understanding it will not follow that their understandings therefore are truly sanctified I am further referr'd to Dr. Downam against Mr. Pemble which is not in my hands and whether my answer be equal to silence as is in the close affirmed I must leave to the Reader to determine Advertisements given to Mr. Baxter touching his undertaking for Mr. Firmin IN a distinct Section Mr. Baxter lets us know how good a mind he had to have appeared in this cause for Mr. Firmin which wonderful change in him may well be my admiration All know that have looked into my Birth-priviledge that I delivered the same things there as in my Treatise of the Covenant I have asserted against Mr. Firmin and that past with Mr. Baxter if reports have not deceived me with good approbation I communicated to him a considerable part of my defence of it against Mr. T. his letter in Manuscripts and I blush not to tell the Reader that he applauded it And besides what I have produced already out of him I have a witnesse of reverend esteem that he hath said that I had given him in discourse full satisfaction of the title of unregenerate men or some phrase parâ—llell to Sacraments But in case upon change of judgment he will appear for Mr. Firmin in this particular and that meerly as he sayes in love of the truth least the reputation of man should cloud it and in love to the Church and the lustre of the Christian name lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianity seem no better then the other Religions of the world Further explaining himself For I fear this loose doctrine so he is pleased to call it of Baptisme will do more to the pollution of the Church then others loose doctrine of the Lords Supper or as much If upon these specious pretences he hath still a mind to it I shall crave leave to offer some words by way of advice to him First To reconcile himself to Mr. F. they being as yet so far from agreement either in judgment or in practice both of them are gone out of the road of the Reformed Churches but Mr. Baxters friend for whom he is about to undertake as to his judgment is yet in the lower form when he is in the upper Mr. F. requires not truth of grace to make a visible Church-member but declares himself very largely against it he requires not truth of grace in a parent to entitle his child in the right of Baptisme It is enough with him that he be a man of knowledge and free from scandal which he well knowes to be the case of many in unregeneration And though Mr. Baxter is thus gone beyond him in judgment yet he sits down far short of him in practice and sayes that we are bound to baptize all those that make an outward profession and consequently their children when Mr. F. upon tender conscienciously refuses many of them Mr. F. and I are as I suppose upon neerer terms of accord then Mr. F. and Mr. Baxter both of us agreeing that unregenerate men have their title and a faith that is short of justifying may
and the bruised reed broke There have not been a few hungry sad souls that I have known that have born the terror of the Lord separate themselves for this reason But it will be replyed by those that give this warning that they mean not these they are not at all intended in their speech these they would tender and with all endeared affection of love encourage as those that have most need and are most fit to receive food for their strength But all of this helps not when this Proposition is laid down That no man in whom justifying faith and a new life by the Spirit is not wrought may dare otherwise then on the peril of his soul to draw nigh hither will not such a soul necessarily assume A new life through the Spirit is not wrought in my soul I am conscious to my self that I am carnal whatsoever endeavours I have used to believe yet how far am I from faith in strength and truth I find my self all over doubts and fears and plunged in unbelief And though I have made it my businesse to keep off from sin yet how far am I from a true change by repentance I find my heart hard obdurate even as an adamant yea the poor deserted soul will take to it self the state of Cain the condition of Judas If there be any other high in wickednesse they have matched yea they have exceeded them They are to put it to the question whether they are in grace or no whether they have a new life wrought or as yet are short of it This they must either determine in the affirmative that they are in grace at least there are those hopeful signs in present that they cannot but conclude it and then they safely may come upon sight of this they may with cheerfulnesse make their addresse or else they must carrie it in the negative all that is yet wrought is not life is not grace is not faith in its power is not repentance in truth as they can do no other that walk in darknesse and see no light that say God hath forgotten to be gracious and so they must keep off from the Ordinance and debar themselves from those cordials those apples those flagons that are there tendered and sick of love yet dare not intermeddle with the Lords tokens that are tendered to them or in the third place suspend and so sit down in doubtful fears whether they have grace or no and then that of the Apostle Rom. 14.23 He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin will soon come into their thoughts and so all that are short of fulnesse of assurance must in dreadful horror separate themselves Secondly This Sacrament in that it is a Sacrament hath the name and nature of a seal as we see in the text and God willing shall be shewn a visible seal intrusted in the hands of man and therefore must needs be of a more different latitude and large extent then that seal which God reserves in his own keeping the seal of the Spirit The Lord knowes them that are his 2 Tim. 2.19 But man is to seek who are the Lords God knowes how to put to his seal to his own man who hath not this knowledg must needs be here allowed a greater latitude either men entrusted with it must have the knowledge of God as to this particular who they are in whom a new life is and grace wrought or else they must be allowed a greater latitude to take in men that make profession of God and as members in Church-Communion may be edified by it I know this argument is carried another way and that we conclude the contrary upon a double account 1. These seales of God outward and inward should answer each to other Those that have the outward seal they are to have the inward those that take into their hand the seal of the Sacrament should have the impresse of the Spirit on their soules To which I answer That the writing of the Word with Inke and Paper in the Bible and the writing in the heart by the Spirit should answer each the other that is every Christian should make it his businesse to hide that Word in his heart that by the Ministery sounds in his ears and yet Christians are not warned not to take a Bible into their hands till the impresse of that which is there is put on their hearts The Word is delivered in a greater latitude and so also must the Sacrament 2. Some say this Sacrament seales Gospel-promises onely they therefore that can claime the promise and have their interest in it can claime the seal otherwise the seal is put to a blank there is a seal where there is no Covenant-promise 1. I answer this argument thus carried speaks sadly to the hearts of all dispensers of the Sacraments they must see there is a Covenant-promise or else they must not dare to put to a seal To put any mans seal to a blank paper where nothing is written is a vain use of that seal It stands there as a cypher Now to put Gods seal to a blank where nothing is written doubtlesse is as vain and an high taking of Gods Name in vain according to these the Covenant is written in non-legible and invisible characters This inward work is that white stone with a new name written which no man knoweth save he that receives it Revel 2.17 and so the dispensers too often against convictions of conscience allwayes at hap-hazard must deliver them any thing written or not written whether a blank or filled up they cannot tells but are all at uncertainties 2. I answer as is the seal so is the Covenant both of them external and one must answer to the other Now these in question as hath been demonstrated at large are in Covenant An outward Covenant is by few questioned and so the seal is put to no blank but given to one interested in Covenant It seals the grace of the Covenant and mercy tendred in the promise on Gods termes and propositions So that the different latitude of the seal of the Spirit and of the seal of the Sacrament do conclude that men of no more then visible Church-interest may partake of it 3. The Church de facto hath injoyed it in this latitude not to instance in some ages following the times of the Apostles in which the Pastors called all their people to daily Sacraments and the use of it in Austins time when wicked ones in the Church were so numerous that they durst not deal with Church-censures but look into the Scripture though we are kept much in the dark concerning their practice little mention being made of the administration after the institution yet we know that this Sacrament was the priviledge of visible members then in being and it is clear enough how far many even then were short of sincerity If that of 1 Cor. 11. be
in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a signe either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Simon Magus had not Baptisme to signifie that all his sins were forgiven but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven Mr. Cobbet sayes well Vindication pag. 54. The initiatory seal which holds true of the other seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumsion was not primarily a seal to Abrahams faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant yea to the Crvenant it self or promise which had believed unto righteousnesse hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. I confesse it is a symbole of our profession of faith but this is not the faith spoken to neither is remission of sins annext unto it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper supposeth conversion and faith The Minor is proved Mar. 16.16 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.36 37. ver 41. Act. 10.4.7 All which texts are spoken of Baptisme and not of the Lords Supper To that text Mar. 16.16 I have spoken fully Treatise of the Covenant pag. 243. To that Act. 8.36 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38 I have spoken pag. 396. and ther is no need that I should repeat what I have said For Act. 2.41 They that gladly received his Word were baptized It speaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel and whether this necessarily implyes saving faith let Ezek. 33.31 Matth. 13.20 21. Gal. 4.15 be consulted For Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as we it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title such gifts gave Judas a title not onely to baptisme but Apostleship such a faith may be had and sanctification wanting Thirdly That which gives us new food supposeth that we have the new birth and Spiritul life and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food Ergo. Ans 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllogismes 2. A difference may be put between ordinary food and living and quickening food It may be true of the former but not of the latter 3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food 1. Pet. 2.2 and yet presupposeth not new life If any reply that the Word is more then food it is seed as well as food and it gives not new life as food but as seed I answer that the Sacrament is more then food There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating which some say may be done to edification and profit by those that are not admitted to be partakers where they divide I may distinguish and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin to carry on the work of contrition and compunction Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for believers and justified persons is no converting but a sealing Ordinance But this Sacrament is instituted onely for believers and justified persons The Minor is proved Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.17 much more then Baptisme and if Baptisme much more the Lords Supper Ans Upon this account it must needs follow that as Abraham was a justified man so Ishmael was justified also who according to the mind of God and in obedience to his commands was circumcised Gen. 17.23 yea every Proselyte that joyned himself to Israel and every male in Israel according to this Interpretation must be justified 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification but a distinct text of Scripture Gen. 15.16 quoted by the Apostle ver 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith and not by works the Apostles words onely shew that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant not of works but of faith so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument are a full answer here Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the Father of the faithful and whose justification is a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision Circumcision was not the cause but the sign of his justification Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justication Ans Though animadversions might be made on these words yet if any will put them into form I shall grant the conclusion when I say the Sacrament as an Appendix to the Word may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith I am far from saying it is any cause of justification I look on faith no otherwise then as an instrument in the work and the Sacrament as an help and not the principal to the work of faith Sixthly There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer Seventhly That Ordinance unto which none may come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings Son is an Ordinance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument Ans 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tendernesse But in this Argument here is much boldnesse to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it that this feast is the fruition of Christ in his Kingdom as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper Luk. 14.15 And when one of them that sate at meat with him heard these things he said unto him Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God Now those that pretend a forwardnesse towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it according to the scope of the Parable shall be cast out from it This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances and yet remaine in their sins shall come to heaven But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance then it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word The VVord may lay as fair a claime to this wedding feast as the Lords Supper Eighthly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The Assumption is proved Rom. 10.14 Faith cometh by hearing hearing by the Word of God then not by seeing if by the Word then not by the Sacrament Ans If faith comes by hearing will
are likewise seals where there are like Sacramental expressions notwithstanding they have no such name in Scripture And as the Apostle infers from the institution of Circumcision and Abrahams acceptation of it that Circumcision was a seal so may we infer in like manner that other Sacraments are signs and seals Compare that which the Apostle here deduceth from Gen. 17. concerning Abrahams Circumcision with that which may be deduced from Acts 8.34 35. concerning the Eunuchs Baptisme Abraham believed and was justified upon believing and then received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had being uncircumcised And the Eunuch did believe on Philips preaching and afterwards received Baptisme May we not well then say He received the sign of Baptisme a seal of the righteousnesse that he had being yet unbaptized so we may say of Pauls Baptisme and the Jaylours upon their miraculous conversion to the faith they received the sign of Baptisme for the same reason Secondly It is demanded whether the Covenant of grace and promises of salvation be compleat valid and firm in themselves Object without these things annexed to them or whether they be meerly void and null in Law as Kings and mens Deeds and Charters without a seal to confirm them If incompleat infirm and invalid this is extreamly derogatory to the Covenant and therefore they are not properly seals Answ 1. Sol. If there be some dissimilitude between civill seals used by men in Charters and conveyances and seals of God put to his Covenant will it then follow that upon that account they are no seals There are dissimilitudes between the Ambassadors of Princes and the Ministers of Christ respective to their functions are Ministers then no Ambassadors There is difference between servants of men and servants of God are Christians then no servants Sacraments are seals by way of metaphor because they do the office that seals do among men and if they do not per omnia quadrare as no metaphors do yet in case they agree in the main for which that serves from whence the metaphor is borrowed it is sufficient Ministers are fitly called Ambassadors being sent of God to treat from him with a people as Ambassadors are sent of Princes notwithstanding that those to whom Ambassadours come may treat or not treat at pleasure may give in Propositions as well as receive them when they to whom Gods Ministers are sent must give audience must take the Propositions delivered and not stand to Capitulate If Sacraments ratifie to us the promises of the Covenant That is enough to denominate them seales though wit could devise twenty differences And yet I read some differences assigned which I confesse I do not understand to be any differences at all 2. I know not that it is absolutely true in Law that mens grants are void altogether without a seal I have heard of Leases parol and Wills nuncupative which I am sure have no seal And seales sometimes by the injury of time are utterly broke and lost and in this case I suppose the Covenant may yet stand 3. What is objected against this office of Sacraments as seales may also be objected against the oath of God made to Abraham for confirmation of his Word That will admit the dilemma Either his Word of Promise was true and firm without it or else which I am loath to speak subject to change The application is easie The same thing was revealed to Pharaoh in a dream for seven years plenty and seven years famine by a double sign If there was truth in one we may argue the second needs not if untrue neither have cause to be heeded or regarded If we will undertake such kind of reasonings we should make no end 4. The Covenant is compleat full firm and valid in case we should never more then once hear it or never have any seal put to it nor any oath for confirmation yet our unbelief and distrust is such that we need ingeminations inculcations oaths seals and all from God to uphold us Object Thirdly It is yet demanded whether these seales are inseparably annexed to the Covenant and promises of grace in the Old or New Testament as parts or parcels of them as seales are annexed To the Charter If yea then shew us to what Covenants and Promises and in and by what Texts they are thus inseparably annexed and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant and promises of grace who do not actually receive these seales of grace when as your selves with all Orthodox Divines must grant that many who were never baptized and infinite who never received the Lords Supper are and may be saved and are made partakers of the Covenant and promises of grace without receiving or enjoying these seales of grace If no then how can these be termed seales of the Covenant and promises of grace which are not inseparably affixed to them as seales are to Charters since many receive the Covenant and promises of grace without these seales and other receive these seales without the Covenant or promises the benefit whereof they never enjoy Answ They are inseparably joyned respectu praecepti Sol. as being enjoyned of God and here all the Texts brought to prove the Sacraments not arbitrary but necessary may be brought in to witnesse though not so respectu medii The Covenant may have its effect without them The Covenant is intire in it self without them They are not inseparable quoad esse yet they have their necessity though not simple and absolute quoad operari for the Covenant to have its due work on our hearts God saw them necessary helpful and useful and therefore gave them in charge as many Scriptures witnesse and we of necessity must submit to them in order to obtain the end to which they serve and for which they are designed and appointed SECT II. Rules for a right understanding of Sacramental Seales FIrst These are outward visible seales Explicatory Propositions touching the sealing of Sacraments and priviledges of visible Churches and Church-membership committed to the Stewards of God in his house to dispense and apply to their people And so different from that other seal of God frequently mentioned the seal of the Spirit which is internal invisible proper onely to the elect regenerate reserved in the hand of God according to prerogative to give That these are external and visible needs no more then our eyes and that they are the priviledg of visible Churches and Church-members sufficient hath been spoken And therefore they both agree in the general nature of a seal both are for ratification and confirmation of the truth of Gods promises yet in a different way and different latitude They have the former that never reacht the latter and the former is serviceable to attain to the latter Secondly They are seales not to confirm any truth of God in it self or to work in us any assent to general Scripture-Propositions But
their ruine Then he parallells Baptisme with it The like figure whereunto even Baptisme doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ which according to Interpreters implyes no more then a resemblance or as Calvin speaks a correspondence though Heb. 9.24 the Apostle useth the same word otherwise The Ark then saved a few when the rest were destroyed Baptisme now saves a few by the resurrection of Christ It will alwaies be saith Calvin on the words as it was in Noahs daies when mankind runnes on their own ruine God wonderfully saves some from the common destruction But here an objection lies that Noahs Ark and New Testament Baptisme are nothing parallell few entred that but now numerous or rather innumerable multitudes are baptized The Apostle answers that the parallell lyes not between the outward Baptisme that is the outward act as man administers it which he calls putting away the filth of the flesh which we know is the work of Baptisme but the answer of a good conscience or the restipulation of a good conscience I desire now to know how the Apostle can be salved from a contradiction He saies Baptisme saves and yet saies the outward putting away the filth of the flesh doth not save but the answer of a good conscience towards God Now this putting away the filth of the flesh done in the Name of Christ or in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost is Baptisme so is not the answer of a good conscience that is no Baptisme The Apostle then should rather have said that the answer of a good conscience saves and not Baptisme But he saies Baptisme saves I see no other way of reconciliation or to make sense of his words then to understand him that Baptisme saves as it hath its work on the conscience as it works upon our understanding and our faith as a sign and seal and is no immediate conveyance of happinesse not any other way of conveyance then as it hath its work on the conscience of the receivers Reasons con ∣ firming Reasons First The Word and Sacraments work after one and the same manner on the soul for salvation respective to any mediate or immediate way of conveyance of any graces or priviledges This is evident in regard of that relation that the Sacraments have to the Word as appendants to it But the force of the Word on the soul to salvation is not inherent not by any immediate conveyance of inward graces or priviledges but as it hath its work on the understanding and faith of him that receiveth it they that understand not are as the highway-ground that gaines nothing It is the power of God for salvation to them that believe Rom. 1.16 It profits not where it is not mixtwith faith Heb. 4.2 It is effectual onely in those that believe 1 Thes 2.13 The bare work done in hearing saves none and so also it is with Sacraments Secondly Signes and pledges added to promises are efficacious no other ways then as they work upon the understanding and faith of those that receive them as signes This may be made good in particular instances in a large induction of signes of all sorts The double sign vouchsafed of God to Gideon for his confirmation in the deliverance of Israel Judg. 6. did not work at all towards such a deliverance further then as it had its work upon the understanding and faith of Gideon to whom it was given The Scarlet thred in Rahabs window had no power for her safety further then it was a sign between her and Joshua minding Joshua of his engagement to her The rainbowe is of no power to save the world from an universal deluge of water further then it minds and assures us of Gods promise The same we may say of all signes and pledges both humane and divine But Sacraments are signes and pledges added to promises as we see here in the text Sacraments then have no others efficacy then as they work on the understanding and faith of the receivers Thirdly There is nothing that is material sensible corporeal that hath any immediate influence or operation upon any object that is spiritual This is plain There must be proportion between the agent and the patient the instrument working and the object wrought upon But the Sacramental signes that we receive as seales are material corporeal sensible and therefore have no such immediate influence upon the soul for the work of grace or conveyance of it Fourthly If this Scripture hold out the work of Sacraments onely by way of sign and seal and no other Scripture holds out any other work to be wrought by them in the soul then this is the whole of their work This is clear Scripture must somewhere hold out the whole that Sacraments effect But this is the whole that the Apostle in this Scripture gives to them where he gives an account of the fruit of Abrahams Circumcision neither is there any other Scripture in which any more is attributed to the working of Sacraments The assumption is of two parts The first none can question that the Apostle ascribes no more here to Sacraments then as hath been said For the second that no other Scripture ascribes any thing further to them shall God willing be made good when we come to examine those Scriptures which are brought in by way of objection for a further work If any would see authorities quoted of men of eminent name that have appeared in defence of this position I shall referre him to reverend Mr. Gatakers learned dispute held with reverend Dr. Ward where he may see multitudes voting for it And when Dr. Ward a Quod quosdam theologos ait hic haerere baptismi effectum hunc ad electos restringere Imo non quâ—dam dunxtaxat sed multo maxima nostrorum pars non tam hic haerent quam ex adverso se diserte opponunt quod ex testimoniis supâ—a adductis luculentissime demonstratum est saith that some Divines do stick at his tenent and do restrain the effect of Baptisme infallibly taking away the guilt of original sin onely to the effect Mr. Gataker replyes not alone some but the greater part of our Divines do not so much stick or hesitate here as professedly oppose which is evidently demonstrated in the testimonies saith he before cited pag. 134. And my reverend friend Mr. Bedford unhappily engaged in this controversy to carry the Sacraments higher then Scripture hath raised them misled with the over esteem of some that have gone that way tells us of hir discouragement by reason of the multitude of those of an opposite opinion that held otherwise then he did about the Sacraments And Mr. Baxter rightly doth observe that at the first broaching of this doctrine among us it was so much disrelished not by Dr. Taylour onely but by most Divines and godly people as
with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy without blemish Ephe. 5.25 26 27. As the spot is taken off by his Spirit in working new principles in us and working us up to new obedience so the guilt is removed by his sufferings He blots out their transgressions for his Names sake He remembers them no more He hides his face from them He casts them into the bottom of the sea removes them as far as the East is from the West He doth not one of these to leave the other undone He vouchsafes purifying and he vouchsafes pacifying grace He delivers from the wrath to come and he makes meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light He conferres habitual graces and he honours with relative priviledges Fifthly These may be distinguished Blood and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided but they must by no means be divided Christ doth not impart his merit where he doth deny his Spirit We account it a great presumption in men of years to talke of justification and want sanctification and we can say to such If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his God writes his Law in the heart and puts it into the inward parts where he remembers sin no more Jer. 31.33 They are quickened together with Christ that have their trespasses forgiven them Col. 2.13 And it is an unwarrantable conceit to imagine that relative priviledges of adoption and pardon of sin are conferred on infants in Baptisme or otherwise when their natures remain still the same and unchanged who can think that God fits all of age for glory that he takes into glory and yet takes infants into glory their impurity and birth-defilement continuing Seeing that we have instances as of Gods love of infants Rom. 9.13 of Christs blessing of them Matth. 19.16 so also of the gift of his Spirit Jer. 1.5 Luk. 1.15 In case the former may be avoided yet certainly the later is above exception The reason given by Christ of that sentence of his holding forth an absolute necessity of regeneration Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God is the pollution of the first birth as appears by his own words ver 6. inferred immediately upon the repetition of the former That which is born of the flesh is flesh and this is of equal concernment to infants and men of years uncleannesse of birth as well as uncleannesse of life stands as a barre to our entrance into heaven and no unclean person must enter there Sixthly The Sacraments especially those of initiation whether in the old or new Covenant about which concerning this in question there is most dispute The Sacraments especially those of initiation have respeâ—t to both of these havo respect to this whole work both of the change of our nature and the removal of our guilt As the have respect to the one so also to the other and that the whole of their work and the way how it is wrought may be better understood we are to consider that First Somewhat is hinted and implyed in those respective signs of Circumcision and Baptisme and that is our uncleannesse in nature and guilt contracted upon it Why should either infant or man of years have the foreskin of his flesh in that way by Divine appointment cut off but to let us understand the propagation of corruption and derivation of it from man to posterity Why should water be applyed which is of an abstersive cleansing faculty but to let us know that there is uncleannesse to be removed Cleansing for that which is clean is vain and needlesse As Sacrifices for atonement did imply wrath so this cleansing implyes filth and consequently guilt filth and guilt being inseparable Secondly Somewhat is signified and taught us in them somewhat the bare signs themselves are apt to signifie viz. That the taking off of the staine and the removal of our guilt is to be done by anothers power Why is this applyed by another hand but to let us know that it is above our strength Somewhat not the signes of themselves but the Word of the Covenant that is annext teaches and that is That the blood of Christ removes this guilt and that the Spirit of Christ takes away this stain This the signes of themselves could never shew but the words of the Covenant abundantly do demonstrate that remission of guilt is the work of the blood of Christ and Regeneration or Sanctification the work of the Spirit That the water in Baptisme holds out the Spirit unto us for Sanctification and change of our wayes is that I know denyed by none and in the Scripture it is plain I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Deut. 30.6 Circumcision is that of the heart Rom. 2.29 which by the Apostle Col. 2.11 is interpreted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Baptisme is the same as to the signification as we see in the same place from the Apostle Col. 2.11 12 13. In whom ye are also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptisme wherein ye are also risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead and you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickned together with him having forgiven all your trespasses And this death to sin and life in grace are both from the Spirit Rom. 8.11 12 13. and both of these Baptisme holds out to us Rom. 6.4 We are buried with him by Baptisme into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life But whether the blood of Christ be at all signified by this element of water some have questioned Sticking so rigidly to that phrase of the Apostle Tit. 3.5 that they will not alone have it understood of Baptisme but they will have nothing else looked after in Baptisme but the work of regeneration But this doubtlesse is a clear mistake The blood that was shed in circumcision gave the circumcised to understand that the guilt propagated could not without blood be remitted And if any think that this is too dark and obscure a proof of a Mystery of this weight let them compare with it the text under hand and the Apostles scope and aime in it which as we have heard is to shew that Abrahams circumcision was not his justification seeing he was justified by faith in his state of uncircumcision and that he received circumcision as a sign and seal of it justification is by blood Rom. 3.25 Circumcision is a sign and seal of justification Righteousnesse of
of faith in the baptized to obtain it and baptisme to them as Circumcision to Abraham is onely a sign and seal of it and doth not otherwise effect it The like I may say of impenitence that according to them it is a barre to the working of Sacraments Sacraments onely work in penitent persons repentance then is a qualification in them that obtain a pardon and Sacraments by way of seal assure penitent oneâ— of it Eighthly 8. The most eminent of the adverse opinion produce Scriptures clearly opposite to their assertions The most eminent that ever have appeared for this power in Sacraments to confer grace on the receivers either utterly deny or at least very doubtfully affirm that Baptisme works in Infants any real change but onely that which is relative that it conferres any habits or any thing more then priviledges on Infants baptized when yet the Scriptures that they bring for proof of this baptismal work almost all speak to such a change that is reall not relative of habits and not of priviledges When this is made good it will appear to any impartial eye that the Scripture-Texts alledged come far short of proof of any such baptismal power to confer grace on all baptized Infants This as it seems Reverend Dr. Ward suspected asserting the certainty of salvation of all baptized Infants dying in infancy he saith That o Quae est nostrae Ecclesiae totius antiquitatis indubitata sententia ut ego reor ipsius Scripturae it is the undoubted opinion of all antiquity of our Church and as he thinks of the Scripture it self For the former part of this assertion that the most eminent that have appeared on this party have held as before let Reverend B. Davenant in his Epistle speak Asserting by Arguments that which he sayes he had often affirmed that the argument borrowed from Infants which Arminians Papists and some of our own use to maintain the apostasie of Saints or believers is not onely invalid but altogether impertinent as to that controversie His third Proposition to make good this assertion is p Pontificii non agnoscunt pro fidei dogmate habitus fidei aut charitatis infundi parvulis in baptismo neque tanquam de fide docent effici uâ—los justos formaliter inhaesione habitualis justitiae aut Sanctitatis That Papists do not receive it for a point of faith that the habits of faith or charity are infused into Infants in Baptisme neither do they deliver it as of faith that are thereby made formally just by any inherent habituall righteousnesse or holinesse To make this good Bonaventure Aquinas Gerson among the more ancient Schoolmen are brought in and of the more modern Writers Soto affirming that habits infused into Infants are not so known as is the Catholique faith and that Estius doth ingenuously acknowledge that this infusion of inherent righteousnesse is problematically disputed the Master of the sentences inclining to the negative And whereas some later Papists affirm that this opinion of infused habits in Infants is now otherwise ratified then heretofore by the authority of the Trent Councel he first answers that that Councel hath no such authority as to make that an article of faith which for so many hundred years hath not been such and afterwards peremptorily denyes that that Councel did ever so determine concluding that it is resolved upon by Papists that all baptized Infants are some way rendred acceptable to God but that this is done by any such infused habits or by any inherent quality created of God is as he sayes as yet doubted among them His fourth Proposition is that q Protestantes non concedunt fidem justificantem aut charitatem Deo unientem aut gratiam regeneratricem quae reparat omnes animae faâ—â—tates in ipso Baptismi momento infundi insantibus Protestants do not yield that justifying faith or charity that unites us to God or regenerating grace that repaires all the faculties of the soul is infused into Infants in the very moment of Baptisme quoting Calvin Beza and Peter Martyr speaking fully to it r Nec quenquam scio nostris Theologis qui regenerationem illam quae sita est in spiritualium qualitatum creatione quam nos sanctificationem Pontificii formalem justificationem in digitant in ipso momento Baptismi productam definiant Cumigitur nec Arminiani nec Pontificii nec Protestantes agnoscant parvulos in ipsa Baptismi susceptione fieri participes illorum habitualium donorum aut Spiritualium qualitatum quae propriè dicuntur constituere hominem justum et inhaerenter sanctum nemo eorum potest amissionem fidei aut justitiae aut sanctorum Apostasiam argumento ab infantibus sumpto demonstrare Adding that he does not know that any of our Divines determine that that regeneration which consists in the creation of spirituall qualities which we call Sanctification and Papists formal Justification is infused in the instant of Baptisme And he brings in also Mountague in his appeal vouching it out of these Belgick and French Confessions and then concludes when neither Arminians Papists nor Protestants acknowledge that Infants in their participation of Baptisme are made partakers of those habitual gifts and spiritual qualities which properly make a man just and inherently holy none of them can demonstrate the losse of Faith or righteousnesse or Apostasie of the Saints by an argument drawn from Infants His fifth Proposition is That Å¿ Patres nec actualem nec habitualem fidem aut charitatem parvulis in baptismo donatam agnoscunt conversionem etiam sive novi cordis creationem quae propriè regeneratio dicenda est non nisi cum ad aetatem rationis capacem pervenerint in iis produci docent the Fathers do not acknowledge that either actual or habituall Faith or charity is given to Infants in Baptisme and that they teach that conversion or creation of a new heart which is properly regeneration is not wrought in them but onely when they come to yeares and are capable of reason For this Austin is quoted and frequent places out of him are produced and with him Hierome Nazianzen Justin Martyr and Bernard making all up with the testimony of Whitaker t Patres ne somniasse quidem de habituali Papistarum fide quam illi volunt in Baptismo ex opere operato infusam esse parvulis that the Fathers did not so much as dream of the habitual faith which Papists say is infused by the work done in Baptisme inferring this as the result of all that in five several propositions he had delivered that u Hinc quivis perspiciat quam invalida sit haec concludeni ratio Multi ex infantibus baptizatis postea pereunt in infidelitate et impoenitentia Ergo fides charitas reli quaeque Spirituales qualitates in renatis Spiritus virtute productae aliquando amittuntur from thence any man may see how invalid this argument is Many baptized Infants
afterwards perish through unbelief and impenitence Therefore faith charity and other Spiritual qualities wrought by the Spirit in the regenerate are sometimes lost And having delivered himself thus in the negative that Baptisme works not these graces or habits in infants His first proposition in the affirmative tending to shew what Baptisme does work is w Omnes infantes baptizati ab Originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur That all baptized infants are acquitted from the guilt of original sin for which opinion many Fathers and Schoolmen are quoted by him as they were for the former So that I think the first part of my position is fully made good that the most eminent that ever have appeared for this power of Sacraments to conferre grace on the receivers either utterly deny or else doubtfully hold that Baptisme works any real change in infants but onely that which is relative and that it conferres not habits but onely priviledges on Infants baptized For the other part of the position that the Scriptures which these bring for proof of this power of Baptisme almost all speak of such a change that is real not relative of habits and not of priviledges The proof is easy What those Scriptures are which by them are produced in this Controversy may be seen in the former position and that almost all of them speak of a real change not barely that which is relative is evident The alone Old Testament text that I can find is Deut. 30.6 with Jer. 9.25 where circumcision of the heart is mentioned which texts as they can hardly be interpreted to speak at all of the Sacrament of Circumcision in the outward rite so it is certain that a real change is spoken to by Moses in Deuteronomy and by the Prophet also complained of to be wanting Reverend Dr. Ward yields that Spiritual Circumcision of the heart is there meant but he saith that by this Spiritual Circumcision the remission of original guilt is understood To which x Cordis circumcisione peccatorum remissionem denotari ut credam nihil adhuc quod suadeat video quod cogat multo minus Certe si quis verba illa Deut. 10.16 Circumcidite ergo praeputium cordis vestri aut illâ—d etiam Jer. 44. Circumcidimini sive circumcidite vos Jehovae exposuerit Remittite vobis peccata vestra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Gataker replies that he sees nothing that can perswade much lesse force him to believe any such thing Adding that If any should expound Deut. 10.16 Circumcise the forskin of your heart or Jer. 44. Circumcise your selves to the Lord to be as much as forgive your own sins it would be thought strange Disceptatio pag. 147. yea he makes the contrary plainly to appear As for those texts Titus 3.5 1 Corinthians 6.11 Ephesians 5.25 26. they speak all to the same thing In every one of them a real habitual change is mentioned Acts 2.38 Remission of sinnes is indeed mentioned and very probably Acts. 22.16 But in what sense to be understood I have shewed in the last place so that I think there is so much yielded and so little proved by the eminent advocates in this cause that according to Scripture there is any such causality in Baptisme for the pardon of sinne in every Infant that is presented to that ordinance and received that even upon this account it is justly to be susspected Besides that the blood of Christ and his Spirit are not onely distinguished by them but divided The vertue of his blood is ascribed to those that have no portion in his Spirit as though that Christ came both by water and blood unto some and by blood onely unto others SECT III. Objections against the former doctrine Obj. 1 HEre it is objected Where the blood of Christ on Gods part is offered and applyed for pardon of the guilt of sin and no impediment put on his part that receives it there the guilt of sin is remitted But in the Baptism of Infants the blood of Christ on Gods part is offered and applyed and no impediment put by him that receives it Ergo in the Baptisme of Infants the guilt of sin is remitted Answ 1 Answ 1. This Argument will hold with equal strength for proof of that which these deny as for that which they would assert Where the Spirit of Christ is offered on Gods part and applyed for regeneration and true sanctification and no impediment put by him that doth receive it there regeneration sanctification and all other gracious habits are wrought But in the Baptisme of Infants the Spirit of Christ is thus offered and applyed and no impediment is put Ergo. The Major in this syllogisme can be no more denyed then in the former The Spirit of Christ is as efficacious for regeneration as his blood for pardon It were over-much boldnesse to put any difference between them And for the Assumption none can deny but the Spirit is as well applyed in Baptisme as blood either then both must hold or both must be denyed 2. I utterly deny that the blood and Spirit of Christ that either Answ 2 blood or Spirit are thus applyed in Baptisme In case of such application they would produce their effects above and against all resistance there is no vain application of either of these to any person If the Spirit of Christ had been in Baptisme applyed to Simon Magus it would so have seazed upon him and wrought in him that Peter would not have addressed himself to him in that language which he heard from him and so I may say of the blood of Christ such an application of it to his soul would have had that effect that Peter would have said to him in the words of the Seraphim to Isaiah when he had applyed the coal from the Altar to his mouth Thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged and not as he did that thou art in the gall of bitternesse and the bond of iniquity The blood of Christ upon the soul of an Infant or man of years must needs be as efficacious as a coal from the Altar on Isaiah's lips Universal redemption we know is asserted by these Authors though it be with such limits as not to close with Arminians but to remain their opposite If now there be not onely impetration of the merit of Christ but also application in that latitude as Baptisme is administred I know nothing that can stand in the way of salvation of all those that are baptized He that would see the consent of modern Writers of the most eminent note in the denyal of this proposition let him consult learned Mr. Gataker Discep pap 6 c. whereby his industrious pains after his manner many are multiplied Danaeus leads the way He is deceived saith he that thinks that Christ and his benefits are applyed by the sign of water which is onely the seal of such application 3. According to these principles laid by these
visible people of God and those that are strangers to him work no otherwise as to vitall and saving grace than hath been spoke let us take heed lest these dissimilitudes do not draw us to imbrace a cloud instead of Juno when it shall appear that they have not so much of elegancy but are answered with equal incongruity If they be such marks as these instances seem to hold out to us how are they then conditional means to communicate these blessings Upon what condition I marvel was it that Moses knew that God was in the bush Or the Inhabitants of Jerusalem that the Angel was in the water Or the Apostles that the Spirit was come down upon them These were undoubtedly to be lookt upon as unconditionate communications of the respective presence of God his Angel and his Spirit And how this stands with that which presently after we find in our Authour I know not unlesse many grains be allowed to abate the height of them that Sacraments are not Physical but moral instruments of salvation duties of service and worship which unlesse we perform as the Authour of grace requireth they are unprofitable For all receive not the grace of God which receive the Sacraments of his grace Moses undoubtedly did enjoy the presence of the Angel and the Apostles the presence of the Holy Ghost Let us then learn to use them as the Authour of grace requireth and that is as signs and seales as his chosen vessel to convey his grace here teaches I shall onely adde in this place If Sacraments work as signes and seales then they must be allowed to have that whole work on all that are Communicants which as signes and seales they can possibly effect either for the bettering of their understanding or farther engagements in wayes of godlinesse and that by the help of the Word they may help the understanding even of unregenerate persons and make discovery of strong engagements to wayes of godlinesse can scarce be questioned If the Word can teach the unregenerate by hearing then the Sacraments being appointed for visible teaching-signes by the help of the Word may also teach them by seeing and unregenerate men making profession of their relation to God may here see further engagements and provocations to godlinesse This effect cannot be denyed to be possible in Sacraments as signs at least upon some persons in unregeneration and when they further see all the glorious priviledges of the Covenant upon the terms propounded of God to be attainable may they not be of singular use as seales to put them on and stirre them up in all consciencious use of means to rise up to the answer of conscience And so as the Word as an instrument in Gods hand by instructions motives exhortations and other provocations is a means for conversion so may the Sacraments as appendents to the Word and by the help of it be herein serviceable likewise which is the whole that I do or ever did attribute to Sacraments so much as in a possible way of conversion CHAP. XII SECT I. The thing signified and sealed in Sacraments THe whole use and office of Sacraments we have seen Sacraments are suitable to Covenants which is to seal the gift and grant of God in Covenant as well as to signifie The thing sealed in them here comes to be spoken to which is the righteousnesse of faith There being a double Covenant given of God to man one in mans integrity whilest he was in spiritual life for preservation in life the other in mans fallen condition when dead for restitution to life There is a double righteousnesse answering to this double Covenant The one inherent in man to be wrought by himself and called our own righteousnesse The other wrought by a Mediatour in our stead and made ours by Faith and therefore called the righteousnesse of faith and sometimes the righteousnesse of God being wrought by Christ who is God And answerably to this double Covenant and double righteousnesse Sacraments of a double kind were instituted The first without respect had to any Mediatour confirming Gods engagements on the terms of perfect obedience The other with respect to a Mediatour and Faith in him confirming happinesse to believers The Sacraments of the Covenant of grace are of this latter sort They are signs and seales as were the trees of life and of the knowledge of good and evil and seales of righteousnesse as they were also but of righteousnesse of another kind The former were seales of the righteousnesse of works These are seales of the righteousnesse of faith Those were seales to assure a reward to our own righteousnesse These are seales to assure us of anothers righteousnesse made ours by faith From hence these two Observations follow one implyed the other in the words exprest The first which is implyed in the words is The righteousnesse of Faith is the great Promise of the Covenant of Grace The Apostle tells us of blindnesse that in part happened to Israel Rom. 11.25 and the blindnesse was this that they would not be brought to an acknowledgment of this righteousnesse But in an high zeal made it their businesse to establish their own righteousnesse Rom. 10.2 3. It do's not appear that they wholly denyed the concurrence of all grace for the work of this righteousnesse in which they confided The Pharisee who is brought in to personate those of this opinion saith God I thank thee I am not like other men He therefore did acknowledge some kind of discriminating grace But it was his own act thorow grace a righteousnesse inherent and not through grace imputed wrought by himself and not by another in his stead in which he confided This observation might have been pertinently and properly spoken to in this place being that on which the Sacraments are bottomed A flaw here must needs be the undoing of all The Jew mistaking here was at losse of all his pains in sacrifices Sacraments and all other personal performances When he had carried on this with the greatest vigour and alacrity he was still too short and this held him back that he look't not after any other righteousnesse and so perished without any such righteousnesse as was able to justifie I should not therefore have wholly past this by but that a long expected and greatly desir'd Treatise on this subject is sent to the Presse and will for a good space of time prevent this piece where the Reader I doubt not will find full satisfaction I shall therefore wholly passe it by and come to the Observation which the words expresly hold out The righteousnesse of faith is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace This enters we see the definition a Sacra-ment Propositions holding forth this righteousnesse and is expressely laid down in the text of the Apostle and for a right understanding of this great priviledge here sealed some Positions or explicatory Propositions must be laid Proposition 1 down 1. This is called the
a memorial of a temporal mercy It is the Lords Passeover Exod. 12.11 that is a memorial that the Lord passed over them when he smote the Land of Egypt v. 13. But this is no concluding Argument that it sealed not Christ or the righteousnesse of Christ by faith as may God willing be made to appear when we shall have occasion to speak of the Cloud that guided Israel out of Egypt the Sea that they passed through and Manna and the rock whereof they ate and drank This deliverance celebrated in the Passeover was in and through Christ as is gathered from the blood that was to be struck on the two side-posts and on the upper door-post of their houses Exod. 12.7 But most clearly from the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.9 He there sayes they tempted Christ but they tempted him from whom they had defence and present deliverance And therefore the Apostle expresly calls the Paschal Lamb by the Name of Christ 1 Cor. 5.7 For even Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us And John Baptist had respect to it as well as to other Sacrifices of the Law when pointing out Christ he said Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world Joh. 1.29 This is so clear in the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord that proofs do not need By Reasons And the Reasons of it are clear Reason 1 First Sacraments are for power against sin and pardon of sin as appears by those frequent Texts produced for the working power of Sacraments which need not to be repeated But by Christ we have power against sin Without him we can do nothing Joh. 15.5 We can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth Phil. 4.13 In him we have the Circumcision made without hands which is the putting away the body of the sins of the flesh Col. 2.11 By Christ we have pardon of sin God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 Christ then is signified and sealed in the Sacraments Reason 2 Secondly Sacraments are for salvation that is their end in common with all other Church-Ordinances whatsoever Baptisme saves 1 Pet. 3.21 But salvation is through Christ He is the Authour of eternal salvation Heb. 5.9 Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved Reason 3 Thirdly Sacraments lead to the Covenant and confirm by way of seal all whatsoever that there in word is made over This is done in all seals which serve for ratification of grants When you see a seal you must find the use and latitude of it in the Covenant so it is in Sacramental seals God entering Covenant with Abraham to be his God and the God of his seed which was a Covenant for true blessednesse Matth. 22.31 32. Circumcision was instituted for confirmation of it and put as we see in the Text as a seal to it When Christ had promised his flesh for meat and his blood for drink being to leave the world he iustituted signs for memorial which are seals of it With this explanation or comment of his own upon them This is my body which is given for you this Cup is the New Testament in my blood And that Christ is the great Promise for blessednesse in the Covenant and that in him all Covenant-promises are made good needs not to be proved Christ therefore is sealed in the Sacraments 1. This we are so to understand The doctrine by rules explained that as all happinesse and true blessednesse is comprized under the righteousnesse of Faith even all that the Apostle looked after and made his ambition to compasse in lieu of all those priviledges which he once had Rule 1 made and false teachers his adversaries still did make matter of their glory Phil. 3.8 9. so every Sacrament that is a seal of this righteousnesse of faith seales all whatsoever is given of God in Covenant to his people If there be thousands of things made over in any grant one seal is the confirmation of all and though the seales be many as Amesius observes yet all that is passed in Covenant is made good in each Our Justification Adoption Perseverance Glorification and whatsoever else in order to these or any of these a people upright in Covenant may expect from the hand of God is under seal in every Sacrament confirm'd unto them So that whatsoever it is that the Word promiseth that the Sacraments by way of seal ratifie and confirm unto us Abraham had this righteousnesse of Faith revealed to him by promise the Gospel being preached to him Gal. 3.8 He had also the Land of Canaan given in promise as a special gift to his posteriry This was now confirm'd also to him in his Circumcision The righteousnesse of faith was as the marrow and substance of the gift and therefore the Apostle puts it into his definition yet the gift of the Land of Canaan which was onely an adjunct annexed as Chamier observes is confirmed with it Every baptized man hath the righteousnesse of Faith in Promise and ratified to him in Baptisme and whatsoever else is made over in promise by reason of any special calling or relation which is of God is confirm'd in Baptisme likewise When we are put of God into any way we have his promise Psal 91.11 to be kept in that way This promise is assured and confirmed in Baptisme Ministers are called of God and commissioned for their work in which we know they have many and large promises all of these in their Baptisme are confirmed to them Rule 2 2. Sacraments seal these blessings not onely universally and in the bulk but with particular application to every one that doth partake of them The Word holding this out indefinitely unto us that he that hath the Son hath life and that unto whom God gives his Son with him he gives all things that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ believers have eternal life here a particular tender is made of his body and blood in these visible Elements of water and of bread and wine The water is passively received in Baptisme the bread and wine actually taken eaten and drunk in the Lords Supper In either whole Christ and the whole of all the benefits of Christ is tendred and to be received So that what miracles extraordinarily were to particular promises as we read in Scriptures for the confirmation of those that beheld them and for whose sake they were wrought that Sacraments ordinarily are and serve for as to true blisse and eternal happinesse This Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen cap. 24. charges on his adversaries quoting Melancton and Luther for it and we are content willingly to own it and among many others which he charges as errours he sayes this is the chief and diligently to be refuted therefore he
of Christ but also the supererogation of the Saints which as they perswade themselves is satisfactory not onely for the Saints themselves but for others The Church of Rome makes it her care to take in the whole of all these branches of righteousnesse and in all of them they place their justification Here we had need of the clew of Scriptures to lead us That righteousnesse which according to the precept of the Law is to be wrought by our selves as to sanctification or qualification of the soul in the way of salvation we must vigorously pursue and not disclaim As Christ when he was accused by the Pharisees to destroy the law and to be an enemy to righteousnesse to take off this calumny he tells his Disciples Matth. 5.20 I say unto you that except your righteousnesse shall exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdome of Heaven So we may say to these adversaries that charge us to be enemies of good works except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of these superstitious ones ye can by no means enter into the Kingdome of heaven The righteousnesse of a Papist being of the self same stamp with that of the Pharisees for tradition the Trent Councel makes known their zeal Concil Triden Sess quart p. 11. With the same degree of reverence and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers as we do the bookes of the Old and New Testament and how defective both of them were touching the righteousnesse of the law their agreement in the glosse which they put upon the law is a sufficient witnesse The Pharisees glosse on the law we may read in Christs refutation Matth. 5. and the several precepts which Christ there delivers transcending the Pharisees dictates Papists will have to be no branches of the law but Evangelical Counsels added to it So that B. Hall quotes a speech of Serrarius the Jesuite that the Pharisees may not unfitly be compared to Catholiques adding as his own that one egge is not liker to an other then the Tridentine Fathers to these Jesuites Supererogating righteousnesse and that which is bottom'd on tradition we must wholly shun It is enough that we can bring it up to the rule in the parts of it it must not exceed It is hard to determine whether a man that casts off all regard of righteousnesse or a man of such righteousnesse be more hatefull in Gods presence one utterly sleights the soveraignty of God and the other corrects his wisdome one refuses to serve at all the other serves onely according to his own pleasure As to the other branch of righteousnesse wrought by others The supposed satisfaction of the Saints must be left and the Lord Christs alone chosen That speech of Christ in the Prophet Isai 63.3 spoken of the conquest of his enemies I have trod the Wine-presse alone and of the people there were none with me holds true when it is applied as by many it hath been though not according to the letter of the text to his satisfaction By one offering he hath perfected for ever those that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 yea the righteousnesse of Christ in the matter of justification must stand alone in opposition to all righteousnesse in the world whether of others imaginarily to be applyed out of any publique treasury by way of indulgence or wrought by our selves either by the strength of natural abilities without grace which the Papists confesse to be too weak or in grace and these works how great an honour soever of late is put upon them come short of perfection to justification likewise as plainly appears by the Apostles argumentation Rom. 3.20 By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight giving this in for his reason for by the Law is the knowledg of sin The argument runs thus Where the Law discovers sin the works commanded by it cannot justifie This proposition is the Apostles But the law discovers sinne even in those in whom grace here hath its most perfect work This needs not to be proved Therefore works commanded in the law and done by assistance of grace in the regenerate cannot justifie And that the Apostle disclaims all righteousnesse any other way his own then by free imputation from God in the work of justification is clear 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Though he had the witnesse of a good conscience as his rejoycing 2 Cor. 1.12 Yet this is not his justification when the Rhemists on the place and Bellarmine de justificat urge this text against assurance of salvation Mr. Ball Treat of Faith pag. 107. saith This text makes strongly against justification by works but against certainty of salvation it makes nothing And Pareus upon the words saith Hence it is most firmly concluded that by the works of the law no man is justified If so great an Apostle cannot be justified by works then much lesse others His works were certainly done by the power of grace and upon new-Covenant-engagements That of Mr. Baxter Aphor. of justif pag. 307. must stand as an eternal truth who after that he had laid down the Socinians tenent that they acknowledg not that Christ hath satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our legal righteousnesse but onely hath set us a coppy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are justified by following him as a captain and guide to heaven and so all our proper righteousnesse is in this obedience And having mark'd it with this just brand Most cursed doctrine he addes So far am I from this that I say The righteousnesse which we must plead against the lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our faith or works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction As this righteousnesse which is no otherwise ours but by imputation being neither inherent in us Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousnesse nor wrought by us must stand entire and sole in our justification so faith must be acknowledged to be the alone grace which interests us in it and attains to our reconciliation to God in Christ otherwise why is it that not onely the denomination is still from faith onely as we see in the text and alwaies when it is named it is called the righteousnesse of faith and not of hope love obedience or repentance But that justification is evermore in Scripture ascribed to this grace The Apostle speaking of Christ who is confessed to be our righteousnesse saith Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood In him God who otherwise through wrath stands at the greatest distance is propitious and this through Faith on which Diodate hath these words All this hath been done by vertue of Gods appointment who of his meer will and full power hath from everlasting appointed Christ to be the onely means of expiation and
of further operation Instruments of meer reception and further operation distinguished that which is objected holds of instruments wholly operative not of those that are meerly receptive A man receives a gift with his hand as the lame man was ready to do when he expected something from Peter and John Act. 3.5 and he earnes his living with his hand as Paul did when in some exigents his hands ministred to his necessities Act. 20.34 In the former mans hand concurres to his enriching but he enriches not himself as in the later The denomination is from the fountaine whence all flowes not from the hand that accepts or the cistern that doth receive There is added In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion nor much stresse laid on it if it were true because it is so obscure It seems then that not I but our Religion is the author of this so high a contradiction so that I cannot defend Religion but I am put upon it to assert such contradictions and who layes greatest stresse upon that which is not obscure and dark I leave to the Reader of Mr. Baxters Aphorismes and Apology to determine It followes That man concurres as a ready agent who doubts but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and justification Do I or doth our Religion make man or faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and justification Quote some words of mine or some Article of faith in any of the Protestant Confessions that affirmes it were some others in my stead they would highly rhetoricate and tell the world what would be said when they are dead But this is my comfort when I am dead Religion will stand up for its own defence that the concurrence of a ready agent hath somewhat of efficiency in it I think none can deny and that such concurrence that I have mentioned can rise to be the efficient I think Faith is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification very few will affirm And to bring my self into that which he before hand charges to be so absurd I said And because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature it is also the instrument of God As some have observed a communication of titles between Christ and his Church the Church being called by his name so there is a communication of actions in these relative works Christ dwells in our hearts by faith Ephes 3.17 We believe and not Christ and yet faith there is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith Act. 15.17 They believed and not God yet faith is Gods instrument in the work of their purification So on the other side the Spirit is Gods work yet we by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the flesh Rom. 8.13 Here Mr. Baxter first takes in hand the thing that I assert and when he hath done falls upon the proof which is first to quarrel with the conclusion and then to take the premises into consideration 1. It is said If this be indeed true God and man are not coordinate causes in Justification that it is mans instrument of justification and Gods both then both God and man are causae principales partiales by coordination making up one principall cause This he thinks I will not affirm and this indeed I do deny upon the reasons afore laid down it is mans instrument for concurrence in it but not of principall efficiency to produce it In case I had affirmed he gives in his reason of denyal of it in a Similitude of an absolute donor in which I grant the conclusion and therefore shall not trouble the Reader with it As to the proof that I bring he first excepts against that which I say others have observed and say This communication of titles 1. is very rare 2. uncertain whether ever and goeth about to take off that text 1. Cor. 12.12 But this being Heterogeneous to the work in hand I shall let his exceptions alone only pointing him out one another text with which if he please he may take like pains Jer. 23.6 Jer. 33.16 Compared After much ado to find out my meaning he resolves But it is like you intended to have said that there is a common or mutuall attribution of each others actions or one is intitled to the actions of the other and so mean only a communication of the name quoad modum producendi and not of the actions themselves And who but he that would seek a knot in a Bul-rush could have thought of any other but as the titles of one are observed by some to be attributed to another so the actions proper to one are attributed to the other Then a Dilemma is brought against me either this is in an improper figurative way of speech or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing and either of both is excepted against I say the action of one is said interpretative to be the action of the other because he makes use of it to do his own work or bring about his own purpose To the instance that I gave that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith he saies there is not a word to prove that there is a relative indwelling But Mr. Br. very well knowes that I did not oppose relative in this place to reall as intending to hold forth any effect wrought by Christs indwelling but the opposition is so absolute as I exprest my self I do not say that justification is directly spoke to in that place yet there is a proof I think sufficient that Christ makes use of our act to effect his own work which is as much as I intended elsewhere Mr. Br. is so free as to yield that faith is an instrument to receive Christ How Christ is said to dwell in us by faith but here he stickles hard to deny it but let us take notice of his concessions Christ saith he is said to dwell in us by faith 1. Formaliter Faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us And so we might say he dwells by Love Hope Meeknesse Patience which I think no Scripture or Orthodox Writer sayes 2. Conditionaliter Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirit abode But it is so a condition as it is withall an instrumentall condition It is not barely said if you believe I will give you my Spirit which might imply barely a condition as it is said turn at my reproof and I will pour out my Spirit upon you but it is said we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith 3. Efficienter As the act of faith doth directly cause the encrease and so the abode of the habit And is it may we think a principal or is it an instrumental efficient If an instrumental I have what I desire and I am sure he will not say it is
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
faith bring as 1. Whole of Christ theirs 1. Christ is his and all that is Christs who doth believe Christ with all his unsearchable riches is made over to believers This is the greatest of gifts that God hath in his hand for to bestow and imparting this gift with it he gives all things These are sons of God Joh. 1.12 and being sons they are heires joint-heirs with Christ Rom. 8.17 heirs of the righteousnesse of faith Heb. 11.7 heirs of a Kingdome Jam. 2.5 Heaven and all on this side heaven that stands in any reference to it is theirs Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come all are theirs and they are Christs and Christ is Gods 1 Cor. 3.22 2. These stand secure against every enemy First 2. They stand secure against every enemy 1. Against Satan In his accusatious they are secure against Satan mans capital and most potent adversary They stand secure against his accusations having an advocate in heaven that makes appearance to answer every charge against them It is of the beleiving elect not onely chosen from eternity but in time taken out from the rest of the world that the Apostle speaks Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect Christs death resurrection and intercession in glory is his answer to every plea. All that the unbeliever wants in those several relations that we spoke to in Christ that the man of faith enjoyes nothing can be conceived in sin but there is in Christ to answer Secondly In his temptations 2. Against the world The believer stands secure against Satans temptations upon resistance Satan flees Jam. 4.7 and they make strong resistance 1 Pet. 5.9 These are secure against the world Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world and this is the victory that overcometh the world even onr faith 1 John 5.4 Greater is he that is in them then he that is in the world They are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation 1 Pet. 1.5 The everlasting arms are underneath them Faith interests it self in God and all that is of God 3. It interests in God and all that is Gods His power for safety and preservation The office or work which is ascribed to God respective to mans preservation is ascribed to faith The Lord Is a shield or Buckler for defence Psal 18.2 The Lord is my rock my fortresse my deliverer my Buckler Prov. 2.7 He is a Buckler to them that walk uprightly Psalme 3.3 Thou Lord art a shield for me with endlesse more places Yea God is so a shield that there is no other Psalme 47.9 The shields of the earth belong unto God yet faith is a shield Ephesians 6.16 What God can do for safety faith cand do not by any strength of its own so faith were advanced into the place of God but onely as interesting us in God and in all which is of God Faith interests it self in the power of God and takes in omnipotence for help so did Abraham by faith Rom. 4.21 No difficulty in the thing could cause his faith to stagger So did Jehoshaphat in that danger in which he stood 2 Chron. 20.6 so Asa 2 Chron. 14.11 so the three children when they were in danger of the fiery furnace Dan. 3.17 Faith interests it self in the faithfulnesse of God and realizeth every promise to the soul and therefore it is said by the Apostle to be the evidence of things not seen His faithfulnesse Heb. 11.1 what no eye can see any other way then in a promise that faith looks upon as present so Sarah in the promise which she received Heb. 11.11 so David 2 Sam 7.28 So that he praies In thy faithfulnesse hear me and in thy righteousnesse Psal 143.1 Gods truth is the believers Shield and Buckler Psal 92.4 Faith interests it self in the mercies of God His mercy in the multitude of his bowels and compassions so the Psalmist in those depths in which he was plunged Psal 130.1.33.4 and under that guilt that he had drawn upon his soul Psal 51.1 and so the Church in that low condition into which she was cast Lament 3.22 Faith interests it self in the Wisdom of God His wisdome when all light is so clouded and all channels so stopt that no visible means on earth can be found faith knowes that what we see not God sees As Christ could convey himself out of the midst of his enemies so he can free his from their enemies As he could enter when the docres were shut so he knowes how to open all obstructions So Jehoshaphats faith was acted We knâ—w not what to do but our eyes are upon thee 2. Chr. 20.12 So Mordecai's faith likewise Esth 4.14 Enlargement and deliverance shall arise to the Jewes from another place So Peter The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations 2. Pet. 2.9 Faith interests it self in the help of the Angels of God His Angels when the Prophets servants eyes were opened he saw Mountains full of horses and Chariots 2. King 6.17 a whol host of Angels for defence in straits and those Jacob saw when his Brother Esau marched against him Gen. 32.1 2. The believing man knowes what the Psalmist sayes Psal 34.7 The Angell of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him and delivereth them This promise is made to every confiding soul Psal 91.11 12. He shall give his Angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy waies They shall bear thee up in their hands lest thou dash thy foot against a stone Mot. 3 3. This work though difficult and not easie to passe through yet is feasible and possible This assurance is possible difficult it is or else such a narrow search and diligent scrutiny needed not and possible it is otherwise it booted not Copper may be like unto Gold and tinne unto Silver yet that gold or silver which is right may be known from all that is counterfeit The good ground well-look'd into may be differenced from the best of those grounds which are bad A temporary faith may be like that which is true yet it is not the same with it and may be distinguished from it There is somewhat in the faith of the elect that is not to be found in the faith of any other in the world Otherwise hypocrites must everlastingly feed themselves with vain hopes and the true believer lye under unnecessary fears so no Minister of Christ could be able to divide the Word aright to any of his people The hypocrite would apply the believers comforts and the believer would lye under the hypocrites terrors Fourthly Upon tryal thy faith may be found temptation-proof Mot. 4 It may appear upon search to be such as it ought Upon tryal faith may be found approved There is many times most hopes of those that are aptest to call it into question As
desired to be found as I think in judgment not having his own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith I think he could find no other which would be as a Screen or cover to hide sin or keep off the wrath of God He knew nothing by himself He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent Yet he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience they are all within the command of the Law and I dare not rest there for Justification And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousnesse You farther say in in the place quoted They that will needs to the great disgrace of their understandings deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgment muâ—t either say that there is no Judgment or that all are Condemned or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation as its distinct species but some men shall then be judged who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch I know no Justification to be expected then specifically distinct from that which did precede I would for the bettering of my understanding learn whether this Justification at the day of Judgment be not a Justification of men already justified yea of men already in possession of their Crown except of those who then are found alive though not compleat in regard of the absence of the body I have fought a good fight says the Apostle I have finished my course henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousnes 2 Tim. 4.7 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown This must needs be unlesse we will be of the Mortalists Judgment to deny any separate existence of the Soul Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping both of them against the Apostle who saith To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.8 And upon that account had a desire to depart be with Christ Phil. 1.23 which present advantage seem'd to him to over-weigh or at least to ballance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labour surviving Your third distinction is between the Physicall operation of Christ and his benefits on the intellect of the Believer per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the morall conveiance of right to Christ and his benefit which is by an act of law or Covenant-donation If you call the first a Justification then very bad men in the Church on earth and the worst of Devils in hell may be justified They may have such operations upon their understanding You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith and this morall conveyance of right Your fourth distinction is between those two question What justifieth ex parte Christi and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris Which as it is laid is without exception Your fifth is between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non et cum qua Which I can scarse tell whether to approve or disapprove with your comment upon it I have spoken to it Your last distinction is between Christs meriting mans Justification and this actuall justifying him by constitution or sentence which as the fourth is above exception Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration 1. You say Christ did merit our Justification or a power to Justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant This I imbrace with thanks and do believe that it will draw more with it 2. You say Christ doth justifie constistutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e Quoad valorem rei he conferreth it Ut dominus gratis benefaciens But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi Ut Rector et Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the New Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer remission and constitute us righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer but joyntly Ut Benefactor et Rector Hereto me are termini novi and Theologia nova But let the terms alone of Dominus Redemptor Rector Benefactor That which you ascribe to Christ in this place so far as I understand Scripture still gives to the Father Christ gave himself for us indeed according to his Fathers command but the Father gives him to us and he that gave his Son appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish John 3.16 So that this New Law if you will call it so is of the Fathers appointment John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life And in this sense if we will follow Scripture The Father justifies Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that Justifies whche is that condemneth Christs work is to work us into a posture to obtain it The Father judicially acts in it 3. You say Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Answ If he justifie by sentence Then he condemnes by sentence when yet he says J 1.47 He judges that is condemnes none The truth is as the Psalmist speaks God is Judge himself Psal 50.6 and the Apostle tells us he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by the man whom he hath ordained Act. 17.31 This unquestionably Christ doth as King but in this Kingly power he is no other then the Fathers Agent who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion Psal 2.6 He is therefore at the Fathers right hand as prime in power for that work Those that are next to him that is chief are so seated and Zebedees Children look'd for it in Christs temporall Kingdome When this is done Christs mediatory power will be finished and he shall give up his Kingdome to the Father 4. You say Sententiall Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification That in Law being quoad sententiam but vertuall Justification Answ To this I have spoken upon the first distinction 5. You say Faith justifies not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a reall impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say to justifie is not to make such a reall change c. Answ To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith The works ancedent to this of Justification as Humiliation Regeneration faith imply a reall change Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul
though the act of Justification do not work it 6. You say Faith can have no physicall causation or efficiency in Justification seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare either in whole or in part c. 7. You say The legall formall interest or conducibility of faith towards Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a condition in the proper Law sense c. I have spoken to both of these in the place last mentioned 8. You say Scripture doth not say that you can find that faith justifies but that we are justified by faith and therefore you say you use the latter phrase rather then the former Ans This sure comes to fill up or make a number To say that we are justified by faith and not that faith justifies is a distinction without a difference We have warmth by Clothes but Clothes do not warm u◠Faith hath no lesse efficiency in Justification then in miraculous cures and yet in them faith made whole 9. You say Though ex parte Christi our severall changes proceed from his severall benefits and parts of his office exercised for us Yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one intire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the condition of our interest in Christ and his severall ben fits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the severall distinct respects that faith hath to its object c. Answ It is well that this is confessed on the part of Christ And I think you cannot shew why Christ should undergo this variety of functions in his Mediatorship and make them known to us likewise That we should be taught in our Catechism which is so honoured with your approbation That Christ executeth the office of a Prophet in revealing to us by his word and Spirit the will of God for our Salvation That he executeth the office of a Priest in his once offering up of himself a Sacrifice to satisfie divine Justice and reconcile us to God and in making continuall intercession for us That he executeth the office of a King in subduing us to himself in ruling and defending us if our faith is not to observe which way these various priviledges accrue unto us Why does the Scripture so distinctly speak of them if we may not distinctly consider them Must our intellect go without our faith in this thing I think it may be proved that the Saints faith hath thus distinctly acted In danger of enemies they go to God in Christ in consideration of his soveraignty As Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 20.6 O Lord God of our Fathers art not thou God in heaven and rulest not thou over all the Kingdomes of the heathen and in thy hands is there not power and might So that none is able to withstand thee c. Under a cloud of ignorance to go to him as a teacher We see the censure that the Psalmist passes upon himself So foolish was I and ignorant I was as a beast before thee and presently addresses himself to God Thou shalt Guide me with thy counsell and bring me unto glory Psal 73.22 24. Under the burthen of sin to look to be clensed and purged To what else did the sacrifices tend and why else did David make his addresse Wash me thoroughly from my sin Deliver me from blood-guiltinesse Here I must lay down certain propositions in a more full way to explicate my self Propositions tending to explain the Authors meaning 1. That these severall functions of Christ must be distinguished but may not be divided He that is one is all Christ a Priest doth rule Christ a King doth merit and teach Christ a Prophet doth both merit and rule But as a Priest he doth not rule as a King he doth not merit he is still one in all of these functions but acts under a distinct notion 2. There is a necessity of the actuall improvement of his Kingly and Prophetick office to bring men into a Justified state and to bring Justified ones to the end of their Justification There must be light to lead men to Christ power to subdue men unto him as well as a price paid to reconcile them When the price of our redemtion is paid by Christ and not published it is like the hid treasure by which no man hath advantage Yea were it made known and by faith applied and brought home our enemies yet are so potent and numerous that they would still prevaile against us Being redeemed by a price out of the hands of the Fathers Justice we must be rescued by a power out of the hands of Sathan When his right determines as it is with many unjust possessors he will yet keep his hold 3. Our faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship It yeelds to his soveraignty is guided by his counsell and rests in his attonement So that the faith which Justifies looks at his Kingly office at his Prophetick office as well as at his Priestly office but not as it justifies Quà teaching it looks upon him as a Prophet and learns Quà ruling it looks upon him as a King and submits to him Quà sacrificing and making atonement it looks upon him as a Priest and rests there for acquitall and discharge Where the Gospel distinguishes our faith is distinctly to act and look As to the charge laid against me I shall say little I had rather speak for truth then for my self You tell me that my expressions confound Christ and his actions with mans faith in our Justification or these two questions by what we are Justified ex parte Christi and by what we are Justified ex parte nostri For answer I only leave it to the Readers eyes whether I do not mention our faith as distinct from the blood of Christ in the words by you recited And it is faith by which we are Justified ex parte nostri The implyed sense which you accuse I shall further consider in some expresse reasons Now for your arguments we have ten in number and not above two of them conclude the proposition in question Your first concludes That Christ is not received as Christ Mr. Brs. Arguments examined if not as Lord-Redeemer which is a new phrase which I remember not that I have read before I read this Apology For Answer I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer and as our Master or Teacher but faith in Justification eys Redemption not Dominion Your second concludes from the authority of the Assembly That Justifying faith is the receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gopel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord. All which is that which never was denyed Your third concludes That to save from the power of sin is as true a part of a Saviours office as to save from the guilt which is not at all
parties in Covenant and the engagement of either party Gods engagement is to be to Abraham Almighty and Al-sufficient for protection for provision so that he need not look else-where to compass good or keep off evill Abrahams Engagement is to walk before God and to be perfect or as it is in the Margent reading upright sincere which walking saith Ainsworth comprehendeth both true faith Heb. 11.5 6. and carefull obedience to God's Commandments That faith is called for in this perfection see 2 Chron. 16.8 9. To rely alone upon God in one verse is to be perfect in the other That this perfection of service of obedience is no other then sincerity all interpreters that I have seen acknowledge See Peter Martyr Vaetablus Paraeus Calvin on the place God Covenants for obedience saith Calvin from his servant and the integrity which is here mentioned is opposed to hypocrisie Rivet closeth with Calvin and in many words expresseth himself that this perfection means nothing else but integrity or sincerity otherwise saith he they that walk and are yet in the way do not attain to a perfection properly so called So that according to him the Covenant requires the same that through grace the Saints here attain and that is a perfection not property so called Dr. Preston on the words is very large to this purpose As for that which you produce as an opinion of an acquaintance friend of mine of extraordinary learning and judgement leaving me to guess whom you mean as indeed I do but with possibility of mistake That the Morall Law is the matter of the new Covenant I cannot well understand at least as you express it How far the word matter may reach I know not I believe that it is their Rule in the New Covenant but otherwise held out then it was in the Covenant of works as I have before expressed my self As a Law it loses nothing of it's ancient strictness for it is ever unchangeably the same the rule of our duty and not of our strength onely the terms of the Covenant of Grace are not for exact observation but sincere endeavour So that the least failing is a sin against the Law but not a breach of Covenant which for ought I discern is the sense that you give As for that which in the second place you urge from him whom you stile Learned Judicious and much Honoured Brother and my friend and acquaintance making these two but one Law quo ad formam I command thee fal'n man perfect obedience and oblige thee to punishment for every sin yet not remedilesly but so as that if thou Believe and Repent this obligation shall be dissolved thou saved else not I should rather take them disjunctim then conjunctim but I know not whether there be any considerable difference I so far subscribe that all that perish by the sentence of the Law to whom the Covenant was ever tendered are by neglect of Covenant left in a remediless condition The Law damns the unbeliever and impenitent unbelief holds him that he is not by the Covenant of Grace delivered from the Law 's sentence When you come to bring all home by application to me with your censure for laying an heavy charge upon them that I oppose and apologizing on their part I do not well know how to understand your words that so I might see my own error You say It is most likely that those Divines that affirm that the Covenant of Grace doth require perfect obedience and accepts sincere do take that Covenant in this last and largest sense and as containing the Moral Law as part of the matter Before you spake of the Moral Law as the matter of the Covenant and now you speak of it as part of the matter And so understood you say No doubt it is true if I understand it of perfection for the future And then doubtless it is an error for I understand perfection for the present And what the Law of God or Covenant do's require it doth in present as I think require And what gave you occasion to suspect otherwise I cannot imagin When you have taken upon you their defence or at least their excuse that hold against you you come to answer my arguments that hold with you I said This opinion Arguments that the Covenant of grace requires onely sincerity vindicated That the Covenant requires perfection establishes the former opinion opposed by Protestants and but now refuted as to the obedience and the degree of it called for in-covenant You answer If you interpret the Papists as meaning that the Law requires true perfection but accepts of sincere then if it be spoken of the Law of works or nature it is false and not the same with theirs whom you oppose Answ I marvail that you will put the case if I do when I tell you expresly that I do not I limit the parallel to the obedience and degree called for in Covenant which these Reverend Divines make to be the same as those that I had spoken to but differ respective to acceptation and so their mistake if it be one is infinitely below the Popish error in the Councill of Trent held forth which I did oppose You further say If you take them as no doubt you do as meaning it of the Law of Christ as the Trent Council express themselves then no doubt but they take the Law of Christ in the same extended sense as was before expressed and then they differ from us but in the fore-mentioned notion Answ I do not understand your distinction between the Law of nature and the Law of Christ as I have before largely told you and given in my reasons You speak somewhat in that which follows that the Papists do not indeed take the Covenant or Law it self to command true perfection but that which they call perfection which is no other then the grace of Sanctification as I expressed out of some of the chief of the writers But it is true perfection that those mean whom I now write against And so you conclude that you see not the least ground for my first charge But you might observe what I further say in words more at large then is here fit to he repeated purposely to prevent this objection that they look upon this which we say is no more then Sanctification as full Perfection and such that answers to the Law in the sense in which it was given Our character of grace inherent is their interpretation of the Law and so they raise up men in a conceit that they answer the Law when they live in a continual breach of it 2. I said If this opinion stand then God accepts of Covenant-breakers of those that deal falsly in it whereas Scripture chargeth it upon the wicked upon those of whom God complains as rebellious Deut. 29.25 Jos 7.15 Jer. 11.10 and 22.8 9. c. You answer This charge proceedeth meerely from the confounding of the duty as such
sed in advocati nostri allegatione confidamus And this I am sure is within Christs Priestly and not his Kingly office That of Bernard also super Cantic Sâ—ct 23. Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium cui soli peccavi Sect. 23. Ego fidenter quod ex me mihi deest usurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini quoniam Misericordiâ affluunt nec desunt foramina per quae affluant Memor abor justitiae tuae solius ipsa enim est mea nempe factus es mihi tu Justitia à Deo Nunquid mihi verendum est ne non una ambobus sufficiat Non est pallium breve quod secundum prophetam non potest operire duos Justitia tua justitia in aeternum te pariter me apperiet larga aeterna justitia That of Austine lib. 3. de Trinit Cap. 20. Fides ad beatitudinem necessaria in Christo definita est qâ—i in carne resurrexit à mortuis non enim nisi per illum liberabitur quisquam à Diaboli dominatu per remissionem peccatorum And Nyssenus lib. de vita Mosis Caput eorum quae in professione Christiana credimus est firmâ rectaque fide in passionem illius respicere qui pro nobis passus est That passage which Chemnitius quotes out of the life of Bernard is observeable Being at the poynt of death and in an extasie of Spirit judging himself to be before Gods tribunall and Sathan over against him present charging him with wicked accusations and the Man of God was to speak for himself not at all afraid or troubled he said Fateor non sum dignus ego nec propriis possum meritis regnum obtinere coelorum Caeterum duplici jure illud obtinens dominus meus haereditate scilicet patris merito passionis altero ipse contentus alterum mihi donat Ex cujus dono jure illud mihi vendicans non confundor Ita hoc verbo confusus est inimicus c. The same Author tels us of an exhortation of Anselme to a dying Brother set out as a directory for the visit of the sick ready to give up the Ghost which is almost wholly spent in leading the dying person to the death of Christ He concludes Age ergo dum in te est anima tua ei semper gratias in hac sola morte totam fiduciam tuam constitue Huic morti te totum committes hac morte te totum contâ—ge eique te totum evolve Et si dominus te voluerit judicare dic Domine Domini mortem nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me te judicium tuum aliter tecum non contendo si dixerit quod merueris damnationem dic Mortem Domini nostri Jesu Christi objicio inter me mala merita mea ipsiusque dignissimae passionis meritum affero pro merito quod ego habere debuissem heu non habeo Many more passages may be found in Chemnitius out of Anselme Gerson Bernard and others purposely brought to make this good that the speciall promises of mercy in Christ through his blood is the speciall object of Faith in Justification largely disclaming any act of Faith as terminated on any other object in the word to Justifie I shall conclude with that which was quoted before by Davenant out of Thomas Aquinas In ipsa Justificatione peccatoris non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli Sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens In this work it self of the justification of a sinner it is not necessary that other articles be thought up but that God be thought on pardoning sin As for your last of the interest in mans obedience in Justification as continued and consummate in judgment In case you could bring forth the distinction out of the Fathers and make it appear that thy exclude all in man except Faith in Justification begun but take in works in Justification compleat and consummate you had done somewhat But to put your adversaries upon it to prove that the Fathers overthrow this distinction when you do not shew that they any where assert it is scarce equall dealing yet you cannot here go away cleare What judge you of the passages but now quoted If Bernard had been of your judgement when he took himself to be before Gods tribunal he would not have contented himself alone with the sufferings of Christ but must have put himself upon it to have brought out a list as large as the Pharisees of his works of obedience Neither would Anselme in his Directory have taught Prelates and other Ministers to have led persons at the point of death alone to the death of Christ and nothing else What say you to that of Clemens Alexand. Stromat 7 quoted by Eckhardus pag. 391. Per fidem solummodo efficitur fidelis perfectus And that of Hilary quoted by Davenant de Justitia habit cap. 29 pag. 377 having urged these words out of Canon 8. in Matth. pag. 164. A christo remissum est quod lex laxure non poterat fides enim sola justificat he addes another quotation out of lib. 20. de Trinitate Justum fides consummat secundum quod dictum est credidit Abraham deo reputatum est ei ad justitiam and then Comments himself upon both these quotations Jesuites are wont to ascribe justification to faith but not to faith alone Hilary taxes this error when he saith faith alone justifies for they attribute the beginning of justification to faith but not the consummation but Hilary far otherwise Faith consummates the just So that your Reader may see that Hilary in Davenants judgement is full against you And doubtless he will still judge it matter of wonder that in the close of your Century of witnesses you say that Davenant most fully of all speaks your thoughts If he agree with you no man no not Mr. Crandon himself I think dissents from you I confess that I come neerer to you than he as in words he expresses himself as you may see at large de Justit habit cap. 30. pag. 397 398. and yet I cannot be brought to agree with you And seeing I am brought in by you in your confession pag. 456. as the first man after you Century of witnesses is ended as voting with you in these words Mr. Bl. in his late Treatise of the Covenant is so full in asserting the conditionality of repentance and obedience that he spends whole Chapters upon it and answers the objections of the Antinomians against it cap. 14. and 15 and 6 7 8. I am put to it to let the Reader know how I explain my self seeing you do it not By which it will appear that nothing that I have said in any of those Chapters by you quoted notwithstanding I assert such conditionality as you mention will serve at all to strengthen your opinion for the interest of works in justification yet for ought I know they may be as